[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2012 20:28:18 +0400
From: Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: License survey
On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 05:03:08PM +0100, aep wrote:
> GPL is a way to piss of the nice people and ineffective for the evil
> ones.
There are also nice people among proprietary software makers. GPL works
to have them ask for an explicit commercial license (and offer something
in return).
> In my opinion LGPL only makes sense if you want to go for dual
> licensing, selling the more liberal one for actual money.
That's a primary reason why I keep John the Ripper under GPLv2; for my
other software where I do not have such intent and do not mean to
discourage proprietary derivative works, I use 0-clause BSD now.
> That's a tiny
> bit more complicated (reasigning every contribution, yadda yadda), but
> worth it.
Copyright assignments have to be "in writing" (at least per US copyright
law), which may discourage many contributors. Instead, I am considering
asking JtR contributors to license some of their contributions to me or
to Openwall with right to sublicense to arbitrary third-parties. For
other contributions, which are more independent from the rest of the
code (separate source files), we use 0-clause BSD. (The current major
contributors appear to be OK with these things.) Things get pretty
complicated, though. So I do not really recommend GPL for musl.
> If you're 100%
> sure you want to continue this as a 'hacker project', go
> MIT/BSD/whatever.
I second this. In fact, being "100% sure" does not have to be a requirement.
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.
