Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2012 12:33:33 +0100 From: Samuele Giovanni Tonon <samu@...uxasylum.net> To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: copyright and license statements On 02/03/12 10:28, magnum wrote: > On 02/03/2012 03:15 AM, Solar Designer wrote: >> Then a much simpler idea occurred to me (I should have arrived at this >> sooner): the contributors may non-exclusively license their >> contributions to Openwall and/or to me with right to sublicense under >> arbitrary terms. This may be applied to files where I am a copyright >> holder too (in fact, these are the primary target for it initially). >> Then in the LICENSE file Openwall or I may license the entire thing to >> the general public under GNU GPLv2 like it's done now. > ... >> If this works for you, then I'll try to come up with specific license >> statements. Please let me know. > > Works for me, please do. Right now i have no problem with giving non-exclusively license to openwall / Solar (is there a difference?) . I'll keep releasing my code under GPLv2; for nt-opencl and raw-md5-opencl i'm updating code it's not clear: nt is bsd from alain espinosa and raw-md5 has no license at all and was done from dhiru kholia. Do i need permission from their authors? do i need to release my contribution under bsd for nt ? I'm a bit confused Samuele
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.