Date: Mon, 2 May 2011 17:27:49 +0400 From: Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com> To: musl@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: Unit tests On Mon, May 02, 2011 at 06:02:15AM -0700, errno wrote: > Have you considered cc0? > > http://creativecommons.org/about/cc0 Not really, although I had heard of it. I just took a closer look, and I think that it's a poor choice for software: an uncommon choice (CC0 specifically), lengthy full legal text (too long given the very simple spirit and purpose), and might be tricky to apply when there are multiple authors (and new ones joining development). Summary: http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (notice "the person", which we might need to edit when we have a second contributor to the code). Full text: http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/legalcode I did use public domain statements along with license fallback, which is similar to CC0's approach, for some of my own works, e.g.: http://openwall.info/wiki/people/solar/software/public-domain-source-code/md5 but this gets tricky when there are multiple authors, and lately I tend to consider it an unneeded complication compared to going with copyright and a purely-permissive license right away (my choice so far is cut-down BSD, but cut-down ISC will work as well). 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.