Hi chieftain,

I'd like to second Janne's comment. If you continue to believe that the MPL
captures your intentions best - and from your sketch of the merits of MPL
vs. GPL and BSD's licensing scheme I can well believe that this is the case
- then stick to it.
Maybe the GPL compatibility issue can be resolved through appropriate
packaging of a complete libcurl distribution inside the other package?
Otherwise I'd say that libcurl can be found and downloaded easily enough
from the curl website, so that distributing it separately from other
projects is just a minor nuisance.

Jörn

P.S.: You have my blessing to put any of my minuscule contributions to curl
that may have survived until today under any of the mentioned public
licenses.

> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Daniel Stenberg [mailto:daniel_at_haxx.se]
> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 30. August 2000 08:54
> An: Curl Mailinglist
> Betreff: give me your view on the curl license
>
>
> Hi curlers!
>
> I'd like to get more views from you guys on the license that curl is
> distributed under: the MozPL, the MPL, the Mozilla Public License.
>
> The big problem with using MPL is that GPL is not compatible
> with it and
> people all over the world use GPL more or less without giving
> it a second
> thought. In many cases free software or open source is
> equivalent to GPL.
> This incompatibility makes all programs released as GPL
> unable to use libcurl
> and distribute them together. (They can still be distributed
> separately.)
>
> ...
>
> What is *your* view on the (lib)curl license issue?
>
> I need your input, your views and opinions.
>
> --
> Daniel Stenberg - http://daniel.haxx.se - +46-705-44 31 77
> ech`echo xiun|tr nu oc|sed 'sx\([sx]\)\([xoi]\)xo un\2\1 is xg'`ol
>
Received on 2000-08-30