PDP-10
Explicitly use 3-Clause-BSD license text.
Examining the COPYING file, it states the supdup programs originally derived from the BSD telnet code.
That code was relicensed 4-Clause-BSD in 1990, and relicensed 3-Clause-BSD in 1999, which would allow us to explicitly use the 3-Clause-BSD license (which would be the license already in use implicitly, per the COPYING file).
I feel this is a tricky lawyer-y question. @dabridgham should have a say, and per COPYING it seems like a BSD license might fit the bill. But then there are also numerous contributors that have added bits and pieces over the years. Maybe let sleeping bears lie?
One good reason for a license clarification would be to allow for inclusion in Linux distributions that have specific allowable licenses, e.g. Debian or Fedora.
For myself, I have no problem with the BSD license and would have happily used it when I first wrote the code if it had existed. I can't speak to the legal question of changing the license now or to all the unnamed people who've added to the code over the years.
What we could do is make a list of people and once in a while contact some and see what they think. If we can figure out a majority of the contributors, then it would be fine to just slap a clear license on this all.
git-authors reports:
Simon Tatham <[email protected]>
Björn Victor <[email protected]>
Lars Brinkhoff <[email protected]>
Jeffrey H. Johnson <[email protected]>
Alfred M. Szmidt <[email protected]>
Elias Martenson <[email protected]>
David Bridgham <[email protected]>
Ken Harrenstien <anonymous>
Leigh Klotz <[email protected]>
Richard Mlynarik <[email protected]>
Wojciech Gac <[email protected]>
grepping reports:
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Wojciech Gac
Mly
Klotz
Bjorn Victor
Someone would need to look further, this was just a 1-second check.
I suspect that is good enough, and now just figure out who would be fine with 3-BSD clause. And maybe see if there are 'minor contributions' that can be ignored.