"Ron Gula: There [was a] very small benefit to working with one set of code, but the overwhelming reason was to have a better relationship with our user base - a majority of which can't really use GPL code. Of course everyone does, but in this day an age of SOX, FISMA and 'process' a lot of folks are having to replace open source solutions with technology that is supportable and has licenses inline with whatever corporate policy is out there."

Implied in response: There are people in our user base who can't abide by the GPL, therefore we have to stop licensing under GPL to satisfy them.

Truth in fact: If you own the IP, you can license it one way, ten ways, or a million ways; There is no need to stop distributing under the GPL in order to distribute under another license.

If the concern "was to have a better relationship with our user base" there was a very simple way to do this: Offer them the same stuff under a different license. (In exactly the same way a music company will license a song via CD differently than they'll license the exact same song for use in a movie.)

Removing the GPL distribution does the opposite of having a better relationship with the (GPL using) user base.

Prediction: Nessus 2 will be forked. After community development, it will overshadow Nessus 3. This will provide another reason to switch to free software instead of closed/proprietary systems. Tenable will then be in the unfortunate business of supporting a security scanner a step behind the cutting edge, for a decreasing market of proprietary vendors; all while watching the IP they _could_ have GPLed and other-licensed slip completely out of their control.

But hey, they will have gained "a better relationship with [their] user base"; all three users are sure to appreciate it. Thanks Tenable!


[ reply ]

Link to this comment: http://www.securityfocus.com/comments/columns/371/32736#32736