On Tue, 11 Sep 2001, Cris Bailiff wrote:

> Georg stated his code was 'Public Domain' (legally, free of any licence)
> and so I said my contributions were made to Daniel under the same terms
> as the rest of curl (MIT-X/MPL), making it easy for Curl::easy to be
> included in the main curl distro.

I don't require them to be the same as the rest of curl, they can still be in
the same distro (which in itself still is a separate debatable issue of
course).

> I or Daniel can edit the documentation for Curl::easy in CVS to make this
> clearer.

I'd appreciate if you could take care of this. I'll volunteer to put together
a 1.1.7 package with it when you're done.

> If Curl::easy is going to live 'standalone', it might also make sense to
> explicitly licence it under the usual perl Artistic/GPL dual licence as
> well, if this is possible, otherwise it's just MIT-X/MPL.

I think Curl::easy should be targeted at living "standalone". We're getting
more and more language interfaces to libcurl and we can't include them all in
the curl archives.

So we should make sure there's correct license information in the curl::easy
archive.

> Perhaps Domenico can tell me if these 4 are compatible :-)

Those 4 aren't "compatible" among each other, but that's also why they're
dual. The two dual versions are "compatible" with each other (and with plain
GPL which probably is important to people).

Still, there's no real point in using Artistic and I don't urge anyone to use
the curl dual license. Future versions of curl/libcurl will go plain MIT.

Now, Georg has explicitly asked his package to be put in the Public Domain,
so I think we should not argue and go with it. In fact, it being public
domain makes it possible for anyone at any time to put it under another
license.

-- 
    Daniel Stenberg -- curl groks URLs -- http://curl.haxx.se/