Please pick a (popular software libre) license and apply in code header

[hartwork]

Hello everyone, good work, very handy tool!

Sadly, the current code does not mention a license. Without a license, a user has to assume "all rights reserved" and cannot really do anything with the code, legally.
For the following, my assumption is that I am not overlooking some license statement anywhere. If I do, please point me to it: the whole situation would change.

I am not a lawyer, but I do have some experience with software licensing.
If @pradeep1288 was the only author, he would pick a license now, and we were done. He still can, but only for the latest code without contributions from others: Since there have been contributions from @nyov and @quinot, the current code at Git HEAD can only be used by anyone if the three of you get to agree on a license. Does that sound right so far?

To add some recommendations, you could pick from

• "GPL v3 or later"
• The MIT license
• CC0 (= public domain)

What do you think?

I'm hoping for properly license code soon so I can provide further patches, open bugs, add a packaging layer and package this for Gentoo, ideally.

Best, Sebastian

[nyov]

I've asked similar in #2, and will follow any copyleft or "free" license (the range from GPL to public domain) for the few changes I made, which aren't really anything noteworthy or 'original'.

Additionally,
@muelli wrote https://blogs.gnome.org/muelli/2012/02/dump-firefox-passwords-using-python-and-libnss/ which in turn links an anonymous paste of ffpwdcracker as source: http://pastebin.com/1chxaBJa (which I believe is this codebase here).
His codebase (https://hg.cryptobitch.de/firefox-passwords/) would be more interesting to also factor into an agreement on the license here.

It'll also have to be noted that the code here mostly if not totally depends on linking libnss, which "is available under the Mozilla Public License, version 2" (MPL 2.0), which in turn might have to be considered when choosing a compatible license, if there are any linking restrictions in the MPL.

[hartwork]

Hello @nyov, thanks for your quick reply!

The content in that paste looks indeed like the code added in bf3c8a1, good catch.
@pradeep1288 are you the author of that paste?

On linking against libnss, static and dynamic linking (which we have here) may make a big difference or may not. Let's clear the paste authorship first before diving into that question, I would say.

[quinot]

As far as my own contributions are concerned, both GPLv3 and MIT License are fine.