moparisthebest/curl
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/moparisthebest/curl synced 2024-12-22 08:08:50 -05:00
Code Issues Releases Wiki Activity

Update in the "which license is best" section as it seems Debian people have

Browse Source 
made up their mind. Spell-checked as well.
This commit is contained in:
Daniel Stenberg 2005-09-30 08:34:51 +00:00
parent e43217e664
commit bf6588b6a7
1 changed files with 13 additions and 8 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

21
docs/DISTRO-DILEMMA
View File

@ -1,12 +1,12 @@
Date: September 5, 2005
Date: September 30, 2005
Author: Daniel Stenberg <daniel@haxx.se>
URL: http://curl.haxx.se/legal/distro-dilemma.html
Condition
This document is written to describe the sitution as it is right now. libcurl
7.14.1 is currently the latest version available. Things may (or perhaps
will) of course change in the future.
This document is written to describe the situation as it is right
now. libcurl 7.14.1 is currently the latest version available. Things may (or
perhaps will) of course change in the future.
This document reflects my view and understanding of these things. Please tell
me where and how you think I'm wrong, and I'll try to correct my mistakes.
@ -16,7 +16,7 @@ Background
The Free Software Foundation has deemed the Original BSD license[1] to be
"incompatible"[2] with GPL[3]. I'd rather say it is the other way around, but
the point is the same: if you distribute a binary version of a GPL program,
it MUST NOT be linked with any Original BSD-licenced parts or
it MUST NOT be linked with any Original BSD-licensed parts or
libraries. Doing so will violate the GPL license. For a long time, very many
GPL licensed programs have avoided this license mess by adding an
exception[8] to their license. And many others have just closed their eyes
@ -38,7 +38,7 @@ Background
Part of the Operating System
This would not be a problem if the used lib would be considered part of the
uderlying operating system, as then the GPL license has an exception
underlying operating system, as then the GPL license has an exception
clause[6] that allows applications to use such libs without having to be
allowed to distribute it or its sources. Possibly some distros will claim
that OpenSSL is part of their operating system.
@ -92,8 +92,13 @@ The Better License, Original BSD or LGPL?
Instead, I think we should accept the fact that the SSL/TLS libraries and
their different licenses will fit different applications and their authors
differently depending on the applications' licenses and their general usage
pattern (considering how LGPL libraries can be burdonsome for embedded
systems usage).
pattern (considering how LGPL libraries for example can be burdensome for
embedded systems usage).
In Debian land, there seems to be a common opinion that LGPL is "maximally
compatible" with apps while Original BSD is not. Like this:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/09/msg01417.html
More SSL Libraries