Peter Morelli wrote:
>
> So even if i'm only dynamically linking to libcurl, I need to include the
> license?

The short answer is no.

The long answer is that there are two licenses to consider.

The MIT/X license, which the libcurl sources are distributed under does
not require any such credit. All it does is simply to disclaim any
warranties. In other words it says that you can do whatever you want
to, except suing the authors if the code misbehaves. No strings attached.

Now, it seems that some code (like the base64 code) licensed under the
original BSD license with the "advertisement clause" has become part
of libcurl. That clause requires that the license is included in
documentation for binary distributions. The clause only applies if you
redistribute libcurl along with your executable (which does not appear
to be the case).

As for applications that do redistribute (or embed) libcurl with the
product, the "advertisement clause" does apply. I have not investigated
how much of the libcurl code contains this clause, but I am pretty sure
that Daniel have included them by an oversight. I base this belief on
the fact that the MIT/X license was adopted so that libcurl could become
GPL compatible. As the original BSD license with the "advertisement
clause" is not compatible with GPL, it sort of negates the whole purpose
of using the MIT/X license in the first place. However, we will have to
wait for Daniel to return before we can resolve this issue. Until then
I would not worry too much about this issue.

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice.

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