On Mon, Sep 10, 2001 at 03:13:39PM +0200, Daniel Stenberg wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Sep 2001, Domenico Andreoli wrote:
>
> > if it was clearly redistributable (= its license permitted distribution
> > of original or modified sources and binaries compiled from modified or
> > original source) i could make it a debian package.
>
> I have always assumed such a license, but you're of course right that this
> package does not explicitly mention any distribution rights.
>
> Georg Horn posted the original 1.0.2 version on freshmeat.net as "public
> domain" though.
>
> Goerg, would you care to elaborate a teeny bit on the license issue in the
> tarball, or should we go with a license in the same style as curl itself?

I originally put it under a "public domain" license, because i was too lazy to
add all this license stuff to the README file and to the beginning of each
file... Then someone suggested to put it under the GPL because that and only
that would allow to make a debian package out of it. I posted to the list, that
the GPL would be ok for me too, but, as you could expect, someone else
suggested to put it under a license like BSD or MPL. As there will always
be someone else, who suggests to do something else as you've just decided,
i then decided to stay with my original decision and leave it under
the public domain license...

I don't see why "public domain" should prevent someone from making a
debian package out of it.

Bye,
Georg
Received on 2001-09-10