Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2012 06:11:02 +0100 From: Romain Raboin <romain.raboin@...il.com> To: Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com> Cc: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: copyright and license statements It's OK for me. > Romain, magnum - > > On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 06:02:03AM +0100, magnum wrote: >> 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? > > Not quite. We need Romain's explicit permission to place his code under > that license - and then we'll apply the license to the entire thing, > including your changes. Romain - is this OK with you? Or better yet, > can you send us a patch changing the "Written by" to "Copyright" (and > year written) and adding the words "Redistribution and use in source and > binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted." ? Please do. > > Indeed, it is also possible and helpful to add informative comments on > who wrote what in that file, but they should preferably be outside of > the copyright + license statement (as long as we use the permissive > license above, so we should have no need to ask an individual copyright > holder to re-license their portion of the contribution). > > In case Romain does not grant this license (or a suitable alternative), > it appears that if the set of JtR formats is considered a "collective > work", then we may still keep and redistribute Romain's contribution as > part of JtR, but our abilities to potentially reuse the code differently > are close to non-existent (very bad): > > http://copyright.gov/title17/92chap2.html > > "In the absence of an express transfer of the copyright or of any rights > under it, the owner of copyright in the collective work is presumed to > have acquired only the privilege of reproducing and distributing the > contribution as part of that particular collective work, any revision of > that collective work, and any later collective work in the same series." > > http://www.ivanhoffman.com/derivative3.html > > "A collective work is a work, such as a periodical issue, anthology, or > encyclopedia, in which a number of contributions, constituting separate > and independent works in themselves, are assembled into a collective > whole." > > Alternatively, since JtR was available to Romain under GNU GPLv2 (and no > other license), which requires derivative works to also fall under that > license, it can be said that if his contribution is a "derivative work", > then it is under GNU GPLv2. However, that does not leave me the > flexibility for re-licensing of JtR that I'd prefer to have. > > It is not obvious to me which case applies and whether this choice is up > to me or not. Also, things may vary by jurisdiction. > > Overall, we're on thin ice with not explicitly licensed contributions > like this, so we need explicit licenses - like I requested above. > > Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. > > Thanks, > > Alexander -- Romain Raboin
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.