[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Sun, 1 May 2011 23:36:50 +0400
From: Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Unit tests
On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 01:54:42PM +0200, Christian Neukirchen wrote:
> Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com> writes:
>
> > What license is it going to be under? I propose cut-down BSD (to the
> > point of being copyright only, with no restrictions):
> >
> > This software is Copyright (c) YEAR YOUR NAME <your at e-mail.address>,
> > and it is hereby released to the general public under the following terms:
> >
> > Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
> > modification, are permitted.
> >
> > This should be compatible with any other Open Source license, which I
> > think is a plus. We currently use this for contributions to JtR:
> >
> > http://openwall.info/wiki/john/licensing
> >
> > I see little reason to have GPL-like restrictions on the unit tests;
> > I think that would do more harm than good.
>
> A court-proven formulation of this is the
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISC_license I think.
What do you mean by it being court-proven? (There's probably something
I am not aware of, which is not surprising given that I'm not really
into licensing.)
I dislike the requirement "... provided that the above copyright notice
and this permission notice appear in all copies." I am not a lawyer,
but I think this doesn't allow derived versions to be placed under
certain other licenses (that would not give the same rights).
Alexander
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
