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