On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 07:21:22PM +0100, bartavelle wrote: > Most of my production is quite bad, and should be considered as ugly > PoCs. I believe that no proper developer would want my source code in > his official tree.
There are several reasons why I care about licensing terms for your code anyway: - I am redistributing the patches off of Openwall's website and FTP mirrors, and having no license at all might not give me this right; - various packagers of JtR, including Debian, apply and redistribute builds of JtR with those patches; - there's potential for a "community branch" of JtR, which I and/or others might start to maintain - and such code would be acceptable there (hopefully, to be cleaned up somewhat with subsequent commits); - the code is potentially of interest for the official JtR as well - not as-is, but rather as "documentation" of the crypto transformations, a set of tried and working optimization hints, etc. - if I produce cleaner code while looking at yours, I might end up matching some portions of your code quite closely - and for that a compatible license would help avoid any speculations about the new code being derived from yours and illegally re-licensed. Thanks, Alexander -- Pkg-john-devel mailing list Pkgemail@example.com http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-john-devel