From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/314 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Solar Designer Newsgroups: gmane.linux.lib.musl.general Subject: Re: Unit tests Date: Sun, 1 May 2011 23:36:50 +0400 Message-ID: <20110501193650.GA1723@openwall.com> References: <20110410044515.GB13185@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <4DA73605.9080107@gmail.com> <20110414231140.GO13185@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <4DB5CCCD.7020104@gmail.com> <20110427004239.GY277@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <4DB7B7CB.8020608@gmail.com> <20110429053605.GA27053@openwall.com> <87wriduvb1.fsf@gmail.com> Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1312595719 11567 80.91.229.12 (6 Aug 2011 01:55:19 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 6 Aug 2011 01:55:19 +0000 (UTC) To: musl@lists.openwall.com Original-X-From: envelope-from@hidden Sun May 01 19:37:07 2011 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87wriduvb1.fsf@gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:314 Archived-At: On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 01:54:42PM +0200, Christian Neukirchen wrote: > Solar Designer writes: > > > What license is it going to be under? I propose cut-down BSD (to the > > point of being copyright only, with no restrictions): > > > > This software is Copyright (c) YEAR YOUR NAME , > > 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. > > > > This should be compatible with any other Open Source license, which I > > think is a plus. We currently use this for contributions to JtR: > > > > http://openwall.info/wiki/john/licensing > > > > I see little reason to have GPL-like restrictions on the unit tests; > > I think that would do more harm than good. > > A court-proven formulation of this is the > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISC_license I think. What do you mean by it being court-proven? (There's probably something I am not aware of, which is not surprising given that I'm not really into licensing.) I dislike the requirement "... provided that the above copyright notice and this permission notice appear in all copies." I am not a lawyer, but I think this doesn't allow derived versions to be placed under certain other licenses (that would not give the same rights). Alexander