Hi Daniel, thank you for answering so quickly. You are right - the BSD 3 clause is considered to be compatible, so apparently such a clause is ok. While I do not fully understand the reasoning behind that, that is good enough for me. Thank you.
Best regards, Hauke > On 10 Jun 2018, at 13:46, Daniel Stenberg <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Sun, 10 Jun 2018, Hauke Duden wrote: > >> The libcurl license is based on the MIT license and the normal MIT license >> is compatible with both GPLv2 and GPLv3. But the curl license has an >> additional clause at the end that places an additional restriction on the >> user of the library (namely not being allowed to use the author's names for >> advertising). > > First I should add that I think it was a mistake to edit the license to begin > with and it would've been easier and better to just have used the MIT one or > the 3-clause BSD perhaps. The edits were done a long time ago. > > I don't think that's a reason for concern and hundreds if not thousands of > GPL-using programs using libcurl seem to agree with me. > > That clause is inspired by and similar to the 3-clause BSD license[1] which > FSF sees no compatiblity problems with [2]. I would guess because it doesn't > limit the distribution nor the or the use of the source code, just > advertising and promotion of products built upon it. > > [1] = https://opensource.org/licenses/BSD-3-Clause > [2] = https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#ModifiedBSD > >> Is GPLv2 compatibility even something that is desired for libcurl? > > Yes, very much so. > > -- > > / daniel.haxx.se > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > Unsubscribe: https://cool.haxx.se/list/listinfo/curl-library > Etiquette: https://curl.haxx.se/mail/etiquette.html ------------------------------------------------------------------- Unsubscribe: https://cool.haxx.se/list/listinfo/curl-library Etiquette: https://curl.haxx.se/mail/etiquette.html
