Hi,

On Tue, Sep 11, 2001 at 06:02:04PM +1000, Cris Bailiff wrote:

> Daniel Stenberg wrote:
> >
> > 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 too would suggest to keep the language interfaces out of the curl
distribution, but as Curl::easy is public domain, you may feel free to put it
into whatever package you like. ;-)

> > > 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.
>
> OK - but I think it should be 'in' or 'out', rather than copied - I
> don't have acccess to the curleasy project at sourceforge, I think Georg
> is the admin of that one, and I don't know if its currently up-to-date
> or active...

I have just sent a mail to the freshmeat maintainers, asking them to delete
the curleasy project from their database.

> > 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.
>
> This is the issue though - public domain offers no rights or protections
> to any of the developers. I didn't want to contribute to Curl-easy
> (just) the GPL, because I want to use curl+perl in customer projects
> (commercial) without pain.

What should prevent you from using gpl-software in commercial products. You
just install Curl::easy on the customers machine, and your commercial product
just uses it. Of course, you must hand out the sourcecode of Curl::easy to your
customer, at least if he asks for it, but not the sources of your product.
That's at least how i understand the gpl. If you would like to make a
commercial product out of Curl::easy itself, that wouldn't be allowed with a
gpled Curl::easy...

> Under public domain, some new developer or greedy company could just
> announce the code is (just) GPL, or completely closed/commercial, and
> either way, prevent me from using it freely, so I don't want to
> contribute my code as 'public domain' either.

What should prevent you from taking your own copy of the code and use it as
long as you like?

> As Georg is clear that his code is 'public domain', I can actually
> declare this unilaterally - I could theoretically do whatever I like
> with Curl-easy <= 1.1.2, including claim it as my own, and release the
> entirity of Curl-easy-1.1.6 under any licence I choose. I choose the
> curl licence.

Yes, i would suggest that you take over the Curl::easy project.
You may want to announce it again on freshmeat (that's why i deleted it,
the entry wasn't up to date anyway) under whatever license you want.

> I'd much rather do this by mutual concensus than unilateraly though...
>
> God, I hate licencing....

Yeah, i also like programming more...

Bye,
Georg
Received on 2001-09-11