Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 06:02:03 +0100 From: magnum <john.magnum@...hmail.com> To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: copyright and license statements On 01/11/2012 05:36 AM, Solar Designer wrote: > When you make non-trivial changes to source files that I or someone else > wrote, you become a copyright holder to those derived works. So, yes, > you can claim copyright, and I (and/or other authors) remain copyright > holders as well. You don't have to document what exactly your copyright > applies to (which portions of the source file), but doing so is helpful. I'll revise my statements. Here is an example: /* HTTP Digest access authentication patch for john * * Written by Romain Raboin - romain.raboin at gmail.com * + * OMP and intrinsics support: Copyright magnum 2012 and hereby + * released to the general public under the following terms: + * + * Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without + * modification, is permitted. */ The original file had no statements at all, but my added statements just applies to my changes. Does this make sense? > However, for some other source files I think that would be problematic. > For example, I am uncomfortable about lifting the GPL restrictions from > rules.c for everyone at once because that file may be of (more) interest > to (potential) proprietary password cracker programs. I'd like to > retain the right to issue such non-GPL licenses to them explicitly. If > you simply add your copyright statement to that file, which you should > given your contributions to it in jumbo so far, then I am stuck with > GPLv2, not being able to re-license the file in the future (neither for > everyone at once nor for specific companies, etc.) without coordinating > with you (which may even involve paperwork each time we're talking > re-licensing for a specific company). I see the following ways to > resolve this for such source files: > > 1. Move your non-trivial contributions to separate (new) source files > such that you can unambiguously apply your copyright statement and our > standard permissive cut-down BSD license just to those. Modify the > original file (such as rules.c) in trivial ways only - e.g., adding > calls into functions found in your new file. This is optimal but it's too complicated. Typically I would hack away until things are good. Then I would need to revert everything and move it to another file. I don't think it's gonna happen in reality. > 2. Don't retain your copyright to your changes to shared files, but > instead transfer copyright either to me or to a legal entity that will > be the copyright holder for JtR - perhaps to Openwall, Inc. IIRC, this > is the approach that e.g. the Nmap project is using (with copyright for > contributions transferred to Insecure.Com LLC). You will continue to be > credited as an author of those files anyway, but not be a copyright > holder. (Authorship and copyright are distinct things.) This is fine with me. Could this too be accomplished with just a standard text that I add in the top comments? Ideally, there should be an example of such a text on the licensing wiki page! Another example, here is the current NT_fmt comments: /* NTLM patch for john (performance improvement) * * Written by Alain Espinosa <alainesp at gmail.com> in 2007. No copyright * is claimed, and the software is hereby placed in the public domain. * In case this attempt to disclaim copyright and place the software in the * public domain is deemed null and void, then the software is * Copyright (c) 2007 Alain Espinosa 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. * * There's ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY, express or implied. * * (This is a heavily cut-down "BSD license".) * + * UTF-8 support and performance tweaks by magnum 2011, same terms as above. + * */ I did not want to repeat the same text... so does this "same terms as above" make sense? Or should I change to this: * Written by Alain Espinosa <alainesp at gmail.com> in 2007 and * modified by magnum in 2011. No copyright is claimed, and the ... Two files I'm notoriously unsure of are rc4.h and rc4.c. I could place a copyright in them but it would seem silly. Unless you have a better idea I think I'll leave them as-is. magnum
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.