Okay, here's the silly question of the day: Does this mean that, if
someone were to contribute something significant to the GPL code, it
would not be incorporated in Nessus 2? After all, it would not be a bug
fix but it would be an architectural improvement by a contributor
instead of Tenable.
Who's laughig out there! I heard somebody laugh! Come on, raise your
hand! :-D
Clifford Collins
Renaud Deraison wrote:
On Oct 8, 2005, at 19:06, Benjamin Tomhave wrote:
Where I am potentially concerned is in the situation where a small
company
may have deployed Nessus internally to scan systems. Many small
companies
cannot afford commercial products, which is why they oftentimes turn
to open
source software. Will these companies now be required to pay a
license fee?
Let me quote myself from my initial email on the subject :
<<
To make things simple :
- Nessus 2 : GPL, will have regular releases containing bug fixes
- Nessus 3 : free of charge, contains major improvements
>>
Not only Nessus 3 is free of charge, but we intend to make it free on
the Windows platform as well.
Also, it has been insinuated by people who don't know better that
Nessus 2.x would not be maintained. This is false. We have no EOL for
Nessus 2.x. There is an EOL for Nessus 2.2.x, which will be made
public when Nessus 2.4.x is released, though. Nessus 2.x-GPL is NOT a
dead branch. The only thing is that you won't see any architectural
improvements to it.
I think a lot of people do not understand what the Nessus engine is :
it's a platform to run plugins effectively. When we improve a NASL
plugin, the improvement works both on Nessus 2.x and on 3.x. So
sticking to Nessus 2.x is fine if you don't want to upgrade.
-- Renaud
_______________________________________________
Nessus mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.nessus.org/mailman/listinfo/nessus
|
_______________________________________________
Nessus mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.nessus.org/mailman/listinfo/nessus
