Re: New script - http-favicon.nse

[dave-san <dave () subverted org>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Sullo wrote:
> First off let me say I'm happy to contribute the current db signatures
> to nmap's nse script for this--permission is granted from me/CIRT, Inc.,
> for the database as it exists today (version 2.003). The restricted
> license on Nikto's db files is to prevent commercial abuses of the
> datbases, and several people can attest that I've allowed them to be
> used (with permission) in other OSS projects.
>
> **********************
>
> However, I wanted to comment on a few messages that I read here that
> have a bit of a cavalier attitude towards respecting licenses.

I meant no offense, and certainly didn't mean to imply that I don't respect the licensing.

> > > > Maybe they are willing to contribute it to nmap?
> > > I'd say it is likely, though it is probably unecessary.
>
> I'm not sure how to take that. Licenses must be respected--so it is
> definitely necessary. It doesn't matter if the license is OSS or
> something really draconian--it needs to be followed (or challenged in
> court, I guess!).

My mistake.. I think a bit of that was taken out of context, I didn't mean to say that the LICENSING was unnecessary if 
the db was used
from Nikto. Rather, I was speaking in terms of the concept of generating a new hash database, (which might make the 
licensing
unnecessary since the database would be generated here).

> > Well, I just fired off an email to a friend of mine who contributed
> the hash information to Nikto and Nessus, and he said it was fine
> > to use them. I'll have him post directly to the list if that'll help.
>
> To be clear, that only applies to what he originally sent. He can't
> grant relicense to Nikto or Nessus data directly. Since I know that more
> than one person has contributed to Nikto's, that means not all of them
> (but see above).
>
> **********************
>
> As I said from the start, I'm happy to contribute and am glad the
> licensing discussion came up, but I want everyone to recognize that just
> because something is open source/gpl for the code, it does not mean the
> same applies to databases. Additionally, even if it *is* oss/gpl, it
> does not mean licenses can be ignored. Maybe I'm reading too much into
> the mails?

Not at all; I should be more clear.

> Anyway, sorry this was a bit OT.
>
> Regards,
> Sullo
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFJE8NiQykzwGjPFpsRAvDdAJ4/3cBKAXoLORE7NXrMvEMnZTKeKACeMbfs
eoKP+5xN58Eh3vgVrQcPiJ8=
=25Bs
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

_______________________________________________
Sent through the nmap-dev mailing list
http://cgi.insecure.org/mailman/listinfo/nmap-dev
Archived at http://SecLists.Org