Renaud Deraison wrote: > I don't really think that it means anything to have a text file licensed > under the GPL. The GPL deals with linking, machine code, and a lot of > things which do not apply to plugin text, which is why I consider that > "traditional" text copyright applies to the report text (otherwise, does > it mean that if you load the GPL report with a text editor, your text > editor falls under the GPL since you "link" the report within the editor ?) That's very true, in fact there has been a long standing warning against the use of the GPL for documentation (which in a way this is). If you want an 'equivalent' license for this sort of the Free Documentation License might be worth a look. People of a Debian persuation should be careful though as there has been a row about this license and whether the facility to have invariant sections violates the debian guidelines. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/licenses.html#FDL Cheers Rich. _______________________________________________ Plugins-writers mailing list Plugins-writers@private http://mail.nessus.org/mailman/listinfo/plugins-writers
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Dec 11 2003 - 07:43:02 PST