> On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 23:12:21 -0800 (PST), David Luyer wrote:
>> For any and all contributions I have made to JtR, please consider
>> these contributions to be licensed under GPL version 2 as of the
>> date of the submission of the patches to the JtR email list, which
>> for the mentioned files was 2005.
> On Mon, 19 Jan 2009 00:33:32 +0100, Bucsay BalÃ¡zs wrote:
>> I think the license behove to bartavelle first, by the way gplv2 would
>> be good for me too.
> Bartavelle already stated a license for "all his contributions", thus
> this file. You can read its statement at:
> The text of the license is as follows:
>> * This software may be modified, redistributed, and used for any
>> * so long as its origin is acknowledged.
> Is it ok for both of you (David and BalÃ¡zs)?
In the same thread, Bartavelle previously also released his code under GPLv2:
BalÃ¡zs above states that "gplv2 would be good for me too".
So it appears we are all happy with GPLv2 and I know Debian are generally
happy with GPLv2. Why not just go with that?
As per Bartavelle I would also be happy to dual license any contributions
I have made if requested by SD.
> For other choices, please read (also bartavelle):
> . ''`. Debian maintainer | http://wiki.debian.org/DavidPaleino
> : :' : Linuxer #334216 --|-- http://www.hanskalabs.net/
> `. `'` GPG: 1392B174 ----|---- http://snipr.com/qa_page
> `- 2BAB C625 4E66 E7B8 450A C3E1 E6AA 9017 1392 B174
Pkg-john-devel mailing list