[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4F2BC60D.6060708@linuxasylum.net>
Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2012 12:33:33 +0100
From: Samuele Giovanni Tonon <samu@...uxasylum.net>
To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: copyright and license statements
On 02/03/12 10:28, magnum wrote:
> On 02/03/2012 03:15 AM, Solar Designer wrote:
>> Then a much simpler idea occurred to me (I should have arrived at this
>> sooner): the contributors may non-exclusively license their
>> contributions to Openwall and/or to me with right to sublicense under
>> arbitrary terms. This may be applied to files where I am a copyright
>> holder too (in fact, these are the primary target for it initially).
>> Then in the LICENSE file Openwall or I may license the entire thing to
>> the general public under GNU GPLv2 like it's done now.
> ...
>> If this works for you, then I'll try to come up with specific license
>> statements. Please let me know.
>
> Works for me, please do.
Right now i have no problem with giving non-exclusively license to
openwall / Solar (is there a difference?) .
I'll keep releasing my code under GPLv2; for nt-opencl and
raw-md5-opencl i'm updating code it's not clear: nt is bsd from alain
espinosa
and raw-md5 has no license at all and was done from dhiru kholia.
Do i need permission from their authors? do i need to release my
contribution under bsd for nt ?
I'm a bit confused
Samuele
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.
