phc-discussions - Re: [PHC] PHS API copyright?

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAGiyFddZTmaG5cpLER8qgCme8WSjiN-pHRgyuL+oJqExxJdq5w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 10 May 2014 16:34:36 +0200
From: Jean-Philippe Aumasson <jeanphilippe.aumasson@...il.com>
To: discussions@...sword-hashing.net
Subject: Re: [PHC] PHS API copyright?

I would not worry about the IP on the PHS API.

FWIW, the PHS API consists of only one function prototype specified on
https://password-hashing.net/call.html

That prototype was agreed upon by a subset of the panel members,
including myself. As copyright holders, I think we will all agree to
license it to anyone under public domain-like terms (CC0, Unlicense,
etc.).

That said, I believe it is necessary to clarify intellectual property
terms on the PHC website. I will discuss this with qualified people,
and will add the relevant statements to the website. Hopefully next
week.



On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 6:16 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton
<dennis.hamilton@....org> wrote:
> Yes, Software did not have copyright until the 1976 revision of the
> Copyright code.
>
>
>
> The original expression (not the part that is from another source) in all
> software is a copyrighted work the minute it is put in tangible form.  So
> the original part of your PHS contribution is already copyright by you.
>
>
>
> Those BSD and GPL notices incorporated in files do not change their
> copyright status, they simply prescribe the allowable use by offering an
> automatic license that is available so long as the terms and conditions are
> honored.  I don't know what you put in the headings of your files, but if
> you want to be clear, it is important to be explicit about what the
> automatic license is to be, if any.  And if you have made a derivative of
> (parts of) other work, the licenses on those works must be honored by you.
>
>
>
> For the most part, programs are used the way their authors intended and
> there is no harm and no foul.
>
>
>
> What we're seeing here is a dispute among two commercial actors.  Oracle
> certainly wants people to use their "API" (as clarified by the court
> concerning what "API" is in the context of Java).  Oracle claims commercial
> harm in the resultant "fork."  Apparently, the OpenJDK license was not
> something Google was willing to honor.  We'll see how it goes when the
> fair-use question is retried.
>
>
>
> -   Dennis
>
>
>
> From: Bill Cox [mailto:waywardgeek@...il.com]
> Sent: Friday, May 9, 2014 17:49
> To: discussions@...sword-hashing.net
> Subject: Re: [PHC] PHS API copyright?
>
>
>
> On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 8:42 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton <dennis.hamilton@....org>
> wrote:
>
> See
> http://cafc.uscourts.gov/images/stories/opinions-orders/13-1021.Opinion.5-7-2014.1.PDF
> for an extensive account given in the ruling itself in the "Background"
> section.
>
>
>
> Thanks for the link. I read: The jury found that Google infringed Oracle's
> copyrights in the 37 Java packages and a specific computer routine called
> "rangeCheck,"
>
>
>
> Oracle succeeded in copyrighting their API.  Had this happened in the days
> of Unix, God only knows what kind of computing we'd have today.
>
>
>
> Bill