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
| ||
|
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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists