Andrew Francis wrote:

> I've actually read the licenses now :) It appears that if I opted to go
> with the MIT/X license, I'd have to include that license in my
> documentation - and it would basically give the user the right to alter

No, the MIT/X license does not require this.

> my executable, or at least the parts of it that contain CURL code :) On
> the other hand, section 3.6 of the Mozilla license seems to state that
> all I would have to do is inform the user that the program contained
> libcurl, and state that it could be downloaded under the terms of the
> MPL at http://curl.haxx.se/.

libcurl is dual-licensed under MIT/X and MPL. This means that you can
choose which of the two you want to use. If you choose to use MIT/X
then MPL has no influence on your code, and thus section 3.6 in MPL
is of no importance.

What does require you to include a notification in your documentation
is the original BSD license, which is used on individual sourcecode
files used within libcurl. The use of this license is independent on
your choice of MIT/X or MPL. As I have mentioned earlier, I believe
that this license was used by mistake, but we have to wait for Daniel
to return before we can settle this issue.

> Alternatively, I'm guessing that I could place curl into it's own DLL,
> and duplicate the curl license in the documentation, stating that it
> only covers LIBCURL.DLL, not any of the other files in the distribution.

Please note that none of the licenses used in libcurl "taints" your
_code_. The BSD license that has to be included in your documentation
does only apply to the sourcecode files that are explictly put under
that license (which is done by adding a license boilerplate to the
sourcecode file). All you have to do, is to write that the license
only applies to file X and Y (you have to go through the libcurl
sourcecode to find their names).

_______________________________________________
Curl-library mailing list
http://curl.haxx.se/libcurl/
Received on 2001-07-12