Re: Internal question

From: Daniel Stenberg <>
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 1999 07:54:52 +0100 (MET)
Message-ID: <>

On Sun, 28 Nov 1999, Kent Landfield wrote:

> # c) I know that mprintf seems to be used. The mprintf.h file seems
> # to be covered under the MPL v1.0. There is a MPL v1.1.

Yes, but there was no 1.1 at the time when I wrote it.

> # Is this all okay with the GPL which some of the rest of hypermail is
> # licensed or do you have seperate mprintf from the program?
> This is a question that will take some research as I do not have a copy
> of both in front of me. Some of this is also up to Daniel as he was the
> one that put MPL on his submitted code.

As far as I know, it should be perfectly all right to use a MPL licensed source file within a GPLed project, but not the other way around.

The mprintf code is taken from a separate project of mine and was put into hypermail as it was to give us a better set of portable printf() functions, and the license just followed. It wasn't really that intentional.

> For that matter I'm not too happy with GPL but that was inherited from
> HP. Maybe when we have replaced all the code inherited from the original
> 1.02 we can decide which fits the hypermail distribution better. ;-)

I don't like GPL either, I want to allow my stuff being used in closed-source projects as well as open source ones. GPL doesn't allow that, while MPL does. MPL also says that changes to the sources have to be submitted back and made available (so that part isn't sacrifised).

But I won't get started on that now. As soon as we have replaced all the 1.02 source code, we can get all the authors' permissions and change the license. If that is what we want.

  Daniel Stenberg -- member of the Hypermail Development Crew
Received on Mon 29 Nov 1999 08:55:19 AM GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Thu 22 Feb 2007 07:33:51 PM GMT GMT