From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/315 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Christian Neukirchen Newsgroups: gmane.linux.lib.musl.general Subject: Re: Unit tests Date: Mon, 02 May 2011 10:51:34 +0200 Message-ID: <87bozlv621.fsf@gmail.com> References: <20110410044515.GB13185@brightrain.aerifal.cx> 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 1312595720 11571 80.91.229.12 (6 Aug 2011 01:55:20 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 6 Aug 2011 01:55:20 +0000 (UTC) To: musl@lists.openwall.com Original-X-From: envelope-from@hidden Mon May 02 08:51:59 2011 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; In-Reply-To: <20110501193650.GA1723@openwall.com> (Solar Designer's message of User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.2 (gnu/linux) Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:315 Archived-At: Solar Designer writes: > 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). The ISC license is widely used (BIND, new OpenBSD stuff...) and thus a lawyer has looked over it, which generally is not true for "own" licenses. > Alexander -- Christian Neukirchen http://chneukirchen.org