[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110502132749.GA18254@openwall.com>
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.
