This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: [RFC][PATCH][BZ 2100] blowfish support in libcrypt
- From: Adhemerval Zanella <adhemerval dot zanella at linaro dot org>
- To: libc-alpha at sourceware dot org
- Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2017 09:03:31 -0300
- 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> <3fbf342c-ff22-7c02-1e1e-b7f0a8082d24@gmail.com>
On 01/06/2017 05:08, Björn Esser wrote:
> 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 are many files being licensed MIT/X11 and/or BSD 3-clause. I don't see any reason Public Domain isn't suitable then.
What I am not sure is which is the correct current policy for new additions,
which might be different that previous code integrations done in the past.
>
> Anyways, since Public Domain doesn't restrict relicensing, I can add a `LGPL v2.1 or later` license to the files in question.
It makes thing easier if it is the case then.