This is the mail archive of the libc-alpha@sourceware.org mailing list for the glibc project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: [RFC][PATCH][BZ 2100] blowfish support in libcrypt

From: Björn Esser <bjoern dot esser at gmail dot com>
To: libc-alpha at sourceware dot org
Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2017 10:08:22 +0200
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH][BZ 2100] blowfish support in libcrypt
Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
References: <79469eab-c809-a5b8-3297-2536320a834d@gmail.com> <19215b6d-f0df-5ccf-e52d-2889655e5fd7@linaro.org>

Am 31.05.2017 um 22:48 schrieb Adhemerval Zanella:


On 31/05/2017 14:33, Björn Esser wrote:

 From f781e7f3e151ed89edd357734dd457bd4cd39ec0 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: =?UTF-8?q?Bj=C3=B6rn=20Esser?= <besser82@fedoraproject.org>
Date: Wed, 31 May 2017 13:37:36 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] This is an implementation of a password hashing method,
  provided via the crypt(3) and a reentrant interface.  It is fully compatible
  with OpenBSD's bcrypt.c for prefix "$2b$", originally by Niels Provos and
  David Mazieres.

I would like to hear from someone more experienced with licenses if we actually
use the license on some file as-is or if we should re-license it before actually
reviewing it.

When running `licensecheck -r .` on the glibc source-tree, there aremany files being licensed MIT/X11 and/or BSD 3-clause. I don't see anyreason Public Domain isn't suitable then.

Anyways, since Public Domain doesn't restrict relicensing, I can add a`LGPL v2.1 or later` license to the files in question.

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [RFC][PATCH][BZ 2100] blowfish support in libcrypt
  - From: Adhemerval Zanella

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]