Richard Moore wrote: > > > 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 ?) No. If you modify the _source_ of a GPL thing (the text being that thing), you can use any program to do it. Consider the text C source code and you will get my meaning. > 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 Where? I have never seen that and there's a lot of technical documentation GPLd. As a matter of fact, when the code is GPLd it makes all the sense to license its documentation GPLd since there might some instances in which you are able to change the code but _not_ change the documentation it comes along with. > 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. There's a lot more than invariant sections being discussed, that's just the tip of the iceberg, see below. > > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/licenses.html#FDL Ok. I don't think I want another FDL debate here, but there it goes. FDL is _not_ free. Period. I would recommend you read the position statement Manoj (a fellow Debian developer) drafted about it (from Google's cache since people.debian.org is not fully functional): http://www.google.es/search?q=cache:SErldDCN1KMJ:people.debian.org/~srivasta/Position_Statement.html+%22Position+Statement+about+the+GNU+Free+documentation+License%22&hl=es&ie=UTF-8 One of the thing that most applies to reports generated by Nessus is the "3. COPYING IN QUANTITY" clause. I wouldn't recommended GFDL for texts since: a) GPL and GFDL are inherently incompatible licenses (you cannot have both in the same thing). And NASL scripts are, foremost, GPLd, that includes the text within them. b) GFDL is targeted towards complete works (books, articles and such) and not text snippets. Many things don't really apply and might inhibit use or make people violate it unknowingly. Regards Javi _______________________________________________ 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 - 23:54:41 PST