I would be happy enough with LGPL, but I believe Openwall's commitment to GSoC included terms that all the code developed under their projects would be under BSD license (or equally/more permissive). In any case I don't think the license matters at all for test case code. Anyone who wanted to improve it without releasing their improvements would almost surely be using it for internal use only (testing their implementation), not as a deployed product, so even if it were GPL they would not be obligated to release anything. Conversely, since it must be in source form to be useful for testing an implementation, even under BSD license, nobody could make a useful closed-source test product out of cluts - the source is essential to using it! Thus I think we should just put aside this bikeshed and BSD it.

On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 5:05 PM, Luka Marčetić <paxcoder@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi there.
I'm sorry about falling behind so much. Good news though, summer brings me a free window that I'll be able to dedicate to cluts. This next week is the last one that I'll be busy with school until September. Next week, I'll finish format.c (and perhaps rename it to numerical.c or alike) and fix alloc.c(arrays instead of lists+implementing your suggestions-keep making them btw. i appreciate them). Things will finally pick up afterward.
About the license: I've been quiet because I like copyleft. My preferred license is GPLv3+. But Solar I think said nobody is going to make their own proprietary version of the library, so why not just make the license permissive and let them use it however. Perhaps we could compromise and choose LGPL, the musl's license. I think the reasoning behind that particular license is clear.

SUMMARY: 1) Serious work will start a week after this one. 2) How about LGPL as a compromise?
Thanks.
--Luka M.