cURL / Mailing Lists / curl-library / Single Mail

curl-library

Re: Adobe Flash Player 9 for Unix violates curl licence

From: Nimrod A. Abing <nimrod.abing_at_gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2006 10:38:44 +0800

Hi,

I'm using libcurl in a commercial app too. I don't think the license
requires you to advertise that you use libcurl anywhere. See:

http://curl.haxx.se/docs/faq.html#6.2

http://curl.haxx.se/docs/faq.html#6.7

The license:

http://curl.haxx.se/docs/copyright.html

Also read the last paragraph of the libcurl license.

> Except as contained in this notice, the name of a copyright holder shall not
> be used in advertising or otherwise to promote the sale, use or other dealings
> in this Software without prior written authorization of the copyright holder.

AFAICT, you can use libcurl either as static or dynamic linked library
and you don't need to advertise in any way anywhere that you are using
libcurl. I don't see any static linking clause there. This is why I
chose to use libcurl in my app instead of other candidates out there.

The meaning of the phrase "all copies" of the software is a bit vague
as you point out. But in the context of the full first paragraph of
the license:

> Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software for any purpose
> with or without fee is hereby granted, provided that the above copyright
> notice and this permission notice appear in all copies.

The phrase "all copies" can be taken to mean copies of libcurl source
code or "all copies" of *your* software. So this last paragraph is a
bit confusing. Someone please clarify. Do I need to print out the
libcurl copyright somehow everytime someone runs my program?

At issue here seems to be that Adobe listed all third-party software
on their supplemental documentation but neglected to include libcurl
in the list. In that case, I guess someone should tell Mike Melanson
about it.

http://blogs.adobe.com/penguin.swf/

On 10/21/06, Albert Lee <trisk_at_acm.jhu.edu> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Adobe's recently released Flash Player 9 beta for Linux (and presumed future
> builds for other unix) statically link libcurl but don't reproduce the
> required MIT-style copyright notice anywhere in software, nor accompanying
> documentation or licence. There is only a reference to the URL for
> Adobe's "Pre-Release Software" licence in the documentation.
>
> The files in question are:
> gflashplayer from flash-player-standalone-9.0.21.55
> (distributed as FP9_standalone_beta_101806.tar.gz / md5sum:
> f200d4d1a5c4591b3131130f6aa6dff5)
> [trisk_at_kainga]% strings -a flash-player-standalone-9.0.21.55/gflashplayer |
> grep daniel
> curl_by_daniel_at_haxx.se
>
> libflashplayer.so from flash-player-plugin-9.0.21.55
> (distributed as FP9_plugin_beta_101806.tar.gz / md5sum:
> 0b234c5d0eaf254ef8af364fb9ed97f2)
> [trisk_at_kainga]% strings -a flash-player-plugin-9.0.21.55/libflashplayer.so |
> grep daniel
> curl_by_daniel_at_haxx.se
>
> They both are shipped with the same readme.txt which states:
> "Your use of this player is governed by the Adobe Beta Program guidelines or
> the End User License Agreement found at
> http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/eula/flashplayer.html"
>
> Section 11 of the EULA:
> "The Software may contain third party software which requires notices and/or
> additional terms and conditions. Such required third party software notices
> and/or additional terms and conditions are located at
> www.macromedia.com/go/thirdparty and are made a part of and incorporated by
> reference into this EULA. By accepting this EULA, you are also accepting the
> additional terms and conditions, if any, set forth therein."
>
> Following *that* link, and selecting "Flash Player 9 Third Party Software
> Notices and/or Additional Terms and Conditions" brings you to
> http://www.adobe.com/products/eula/third_party/flashplayer/ - where curl is
> is not acknowledged in any way.
>
> Even if the copyright notice were listed, it may be moot because the terms of
> the licence say that the notice has to "appear in all copies" of the software
> rather than "accompanying" or "supporting" documentation and materials. This
> would also apply to MIT's own copyright mentioned on the third party terms
> page, so it's obviously open to interpretation.
>
> -Albert
>

-- 
_nimrod_a_abing_
[?] http://abing.gotdns.com
Received on 2006-10-21