[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120203003912.GA14213@openwall.com>
Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2012 04:39:12 +0400
From: Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com>
To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: copyright and license statements
On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 06:02:03AM +0100, magnum wrote:
> Another example, here is the current NT_fmt comments:
>
> /* NTLM patch for john (performance improvement)
> *
> * Written by Alain Espinosa <alainesp at gmail.com> in 2007. No copyright
> * is claimed, and the software is hereby placed in the public domain.
> * In case this attempt to disclaim copyright and place the software in the
> * public domain is deemed null and void, then the software is
> * Copyright (c) 2007 Alain Espinosa 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.
> *
> * There's ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY, express or implied.
> *
> * (This is a heavily cut-down "BSD license".)
> *
> + * UTF-8 support and performance tweaks by magnum 2011, same terms as
> above.
> + *
> */
>
> I did not want to repeat the same text... so does this "same terms as
> above" make sense? Or should I change to this:
>
> * Written by Alain Espinosa <alainesp at gmail.com> in 2007 and
> * modified by magnum in 2011. No copyright is claimed, and the
> ...
I'd appreciate it if you clarify this as you propose - and don't forget
to add a copyright statement to the license fallback too. Like this:
* Written by Alain Espinosa <alainesp at gmail.com> in 2007 and
* modified by magnum in 2011. No copyright is claimed, and the
* software is hereby placed in the public domain.
* In case this attempt to disclaim copyright and place the software in the
* public domain is deemed null and void, then the software is
* Copyright (c) 2007 Alain Espinosa
* Copyright (c) 2011 magnum
* 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.
BTW, one of several reasons why I no longer suggest the public domain +
license fallback approach for new contributions (and instead suggest
copyright + permissive license right away) is that when the code is then
modified by someone else, we arrive at even more unusual wording (like
above) - and being unusual is bad for legal stuff. But let's go with
this for now for files already with this sort of statements.
Thanks,
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.
