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.