[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Nmh-workers] [patch] Exchange of MD5 implementation due to license

From: markus schnalke
Subject: Re: [Nmh-workers] [patch] Exchange of MD5 implementation due to license
Date: Tue, 09 Nov 2010 15:01:35 +0100
User-agent: nmh 1.3

[2010-11-05 21:43] Peter Maydell <address@hidden>
> markus schnalke wrote:
> >Could be that the license changed since then, because it reads:
> >
> > * This software was written by Alexander Peslyak in 2001.  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) 2001 Alexander Peslyak 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".)
> That just means that the license depends on whether your local
> jurisdiction thinks "public domain" exists and what "deemed null
> and void" means legally under local law. The author should just
> have put the thing under a reasonable license in the first place,
> then we'd know where we stood.

I had private conversation with Solar Designer. He said:

> Peter has a valid point, but:
> - Yes, the terms are "conditional", but so what.  Peter does not show
> how this is a problem for their use of the code.  I think that it is
> not.
> - If they want unconditional BSD license, they can place their copy of
> my code under that, without having to ask me.  This is possible because
> it is a valid change in _either_ case.  It is valid if the code is in
> the public domain - because they can license it any way they like then
> -
> and it is also valid because the fallback license I provided is cut-down
> BSD.  So just remove the "public domain part" of my permission text.
> No GPL-like "license virus" here. :-)
> - I dislike including a copyright+license only, with no public domain
> option (for those who find it acceptable for their use/redistribution).
> This is because I dislike forcing people to list me as a copyright
> holder in their copyright statements for their larger "products".

I don't want to push this too much because I understand that we cannot
work on all ends at the same time.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]