This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the glibc project.
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: <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.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?= <email@example.com>
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
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
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.
Anyways, since Public Domain doesn't restrict relicensing, I can add a
`LGPL v2.1 or later` license to the files in question.