Openwall GNU/*/Linux - a small security-enhanced Linux distro for servers
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Sat, 4 Feb 2012 09:45:54 +0400
From: Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com>
To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: copyright and license statements

Samuele, Dhiru -

On Fri, Feb 03, 2012 at 12:33:33PM +0100, Samuele Giovanni Tonon wrote:
> Right now i have no problem with giving non-exclusively license to
> openwall / Solar

Great.  (The keyword is: with right to sublicense.)

Initially, my plan is to apply this approach to files that are present
in the main tree (written by me) and modified in jumbo (currently by
JimF or/and magnum).  So it won't affect what you're working on yet.

> (is there a difference?) .

There's little difference now, but there might be more in the future.

> I'll keep releasing my code under GPLv2;

Why not under the cut-down BSD license recommended here? -

http://openwall.info/wiki/john/licensing

> for nt-opencl and
> raw-md5-opencl i'm updating code it's not clear: nt is bsd from alain
> espinosa

For nt_opencl_kernel.cl, please use the same approach that I suggested
to magnum here:

http://www.openwall.com/lists/john-dev/2012/02/03/4

> and raw-md5 has no license at all and was done from dhiru kholia.

We need to correct that.  Otherwise we have the same kind of uncertainty
(part of "collective work" or GPL'ed as "derivative work") that we did
with HDAA_fmt_plug.c before Romain approved placing it under our current
preferred license for such contributions.  We need to ask Dhiru for the
same thing (if he's the author).

> Do i need permission from their authors?

We need it.

> do i need to release my contribution under bsd for nt  ?

Since Alain's contribution, which you modified, was public domain +
fallback to cut-down BSD license, you can either do the same for your
changes (as suggested above) or you can fully move to cut-down BSD
license for your derived version.  Either works for me.

For ssha_opencl_kernel.cl, you don't specify any license, but you wrote
that the code is based on someone else's - so we need to know what
license applied to that code.  Can you clarify this?

Perhaps there are other files in your patches with unclear terms as
well...  We need to take care of them all.

Thanks,

Alexander

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Your e-mail address:

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux - Powered by OpenVZ