Comment 40 for bug 1273484

(In reply to Drew Blessing from comment #36)
> I agree that nagios-plugins, if kept, should retain the current source and
> name through future releases. Unfortunately I think you and the community
> have different definitions of what the "current" source is. I think most
> would agree the current source is the team behind what is now
> monitoring-plugins.

You may copy code licensed under GPLv3, and call it a forked version (as the source tarball on nagios-plugins.org shows - luckily they don't need to rename anything, but technically it is a fork). But you must not copy a website which is copyrighted, and then claim to be the official source for a project abusing the content of a different owner. That is illegal.

In whatever context or light that may lie, I totally agree with comment #33

(In reply to DJ Delorie from comment #33)
> I looked at the current and previous (via archive.org) versions of both
> websites, and saw nothing that permitted copying that content. If The
> content has been copied without permission, nothing the Fedora project
> publishes should refer to that content, else we would be tainting our
> "Freedom" core value. Regardless of other arguments, we should ensure that
> we can ethically and legally refer to any sites we mention in our products.

In terms of the package name itself - given the current monitoring tools available in fedora, it's a good choice. Zabbix may use the plugins using wrappers, the Nagios&Forks ecosystem depends on it, Sensu is actually using it, but not in Fedora afaik. It's also reasonable to note that the project identifies itsself as "Monitoring Plugins Development Team" under the monitoring-portal.org domain. That makes it the number one candidate for such a package name, unless some other tool will require the name.