Re: Building 64-bit version of ncurses on Solaris 8

[Daniel Stenberg]

On Fri, 1 Feb 2002, Albert Chin wrote:

> On Fri, Feb 01, 2002 at 08:20:09PM -0500, Thomas E. Dickey wrote:
> > On Fri, 1 Feb 2002, Daniel Weaver wrote:
> >
> > > Trio does not have the same copyright as ncurses.  Trio uses a MIT type
> > > of free software while ncurses uses the GNU Copy-left.  The copy-left
> > > strictly forbids mixing copyrights.  Distributing trio sources code
> > > with ncurses would violate the copy-left.
> >
> > tack, which is bundled with ncurses (but upon which nothing else in
> > ncurses depends) is GPL.  ncurses is an MIT-style license (which is more
> > detailed than trio's because it states that modified versions may be
> > distributed).
>
> Daniel and Bjorn, any possibility of updating the license to reflect that
> modifications can be redistributed? I've included a copy of the ncurses
> license below.

I won't repeat the same info Bjørn Reese already provided.

Instead, I'll just quietly point out the factual error in the comment
included above:

 "Trio uses a MIT type of free software while ncurses uses the GNU Copy-left.
 The copy-left strictly forbids mixing copyrights.  Distributing trio sources
 code with ncurses would violate the copy-left."

First, copyleft does not at all prevent or even discourage mixing copyrights
(FSF does that for GNU projects, but that is beyond what the GPL itself
propagates).

Trio and associated files are released under a MIT-like license, which should
allow them to fit into just about any project without causing licensing
problems. As can be viewed on the GNU web site, the MIT license is deemed
"compatible" with GPL:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#TOCGPLCompatibleLicenses

-- 
      Daniel Stenberg - http://daniel.haxx.se - +46-705-44 31 77
   ech`echo xiun|tr nu oc|sed 'sx\([sx]\)\([xoi]\)xo un\2\1 is xg'`ol