Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Mon, 02 May 2011 10:51:34 +0200
From: Christian Neukirchen <>
Subject: Re: Unit tests

Solar Designer <> writes:

> On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 01:54:42PM +0200, Christian Neukirchen wrote:
>> Solar Designer <> 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:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > 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
>> 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).

The ISC license is widely used (BIND, new OpenBSD stuff...) and thus a
lawyer has looked over it, which generally is not true for "own"

> Alexander
Christian Neukirchen  <>

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.