Hi Renaud,
On Wed, Jun 26, 2002 at 01:08:42AM +0200, Renaud Deraison wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 25, 2002 at 07:04:32PM -0400, Simon Law wrote:
> > Just touching base with you regarding the license conflict with
> > OpenSSL. Have you had a chance to talk to your lawyer? I'm not
> > pushing, but I'd
On Fri, May 24, 2002 at 07:13:07PM -0400, Simon Law wrote:
> Reading through the license exception again, we only need to
> worry if the OpenSSL folks get nasty on us. This is because modified
> versions of OpenSSL must use the same license as OpenSSL (four-clause BSD
> with OpenSSL advertis
On 24 May 2002, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> Simon Law wrote:
> > If that doesn't work, could we say that the OpenSSL library can
> > only be used for SSL support only?
>
> For a given definition of "SSL support"? :-)
>
> It seems to me that the best way forward is to restrict the exact
> behavior w
On Fri, 24 May 2002, Renaud Deraison wrote:
> On Fri, May 24, 2002 at 09:03:50AM -0400, Simon Law wrote:
> > if a company made extensions to Nessus
> > and bundled them into the OpenSSL library; then they wouldn't actually
> > be derivative works of OpenSSL, but rather derivative works of Nessus.
>
On Fri, 2002-05-24 at 08:03, Simon Law wrote:
> I'm cc-ing to debian-legal about this, because I'm not sure if
> this argument would hold water: if a company made extensions to Nessus
> and bundled them into the OpenSSL library; then they wouldn't actually
> be derivative works of OpenSSL, bu
On Fri, May 24, 2002 at 09:03:50AM -0400, Simon Law wrote:
> if a company made extensions to Nessus
> and bundled them into the OpenSSL library; then they wouldn't actually
> be derivative works of OpenSSL, but rather derivative works of Nessus.
The problem is that this is a _subjective_ issue. W
On Fri, 24 May 2002, Renaud Deraison wrote:
> On Fri, May 24, 2002 at 12:32:39PM +0200, Renaud Deraison wrote:
> > On Wed, May 22, 2002 at 02:10:45AM -0400, Simon Law wrote:
> > > On Fri, 17 May 2002, Renaud Deraison wrote:
> > > 2002-05-22 Simon Law <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >
> > > * Added th
On Wed, 15 May 2002, Branden Robinson wrote:
> [ nessus.org addresses not Cc'ed ]
>
> On Wed, May 15, 2002 at 07:13:15PM -0400, Simon Law wrote:
> > As well, to keep Nessus free, you should also put in a clause allowing
> > anyone else to remove this exemption in their derivative works.
>
> Just
[ nessus.org addresses not Cc'ed ]
On Wed, May 15, 2002 at 07:13:15PM -0400, Simon Law wrote:
> As well, to keep Nessus free, you should also put in a clause allowing
> anyone else to remove this exemption in their derivative works.
Just FYI...
This isn't solely a matter of keeping Nessus free.
Hi Renaund et al.,
First off, I want to thank everyone for a great job with Nessus
1.2.0. It's much better compared to Nessus 1.0.10, which I was running
before. You guys are fantastic.
As I was compiling Nessus 1.2.0, I noticed something of concern.
It seems like Nessus, a piec
10 matches
Mail list logo
