@bagder @sheogorath I mean, yeah. They released their software under permissive licensing the explicitly allows for this. Not that it isn’t a dick move, it’s just one that cURL signed up for.

@nathand Uff, so you are saying it's @bagder's own fault? As main curl developer 👀

Not sure that's what permissive means. "You are allowed to use it" doesn't mean "I'm your support forum."

@sheogorath @bagder it means they are legally allowed to not only include it in a sold, closed-source project, but also gives them partial immunity in requiring to support it, as it’s not their project.

It’s a dick move, but Apple is under no requirement to either support cURL financially or otherwise. Microsoft does the same thing.

Part-in-parcel of open source: You can bundle it together, so long as the license is followed, they (along with the authors) have no requirements to support it.

@sheogorath @bagder and yes, I am saying that the developers of cURL chose a permissive license that allows for this behavior, and therefore are responsible for any consequences there in.

The developers don’t have to support it, either. The license specifically waives warranty.

@nathand @sheogorath the license has nothing to do with this. Had curl been GPL, they could've done the exact same thing.


The GPL doesn't require giving support when asked for. The GPL has a similar warranty clause that inferior licenses have.

And macOS wouldn't be considered a derived work of a GPL program just for shipping it. In fact, macOS contains GNU Bash.

(The main motivation behind copyleft licenses is that the user can choose to replace the software by any alternative version if it doesn't behave the way they want it to. And macOS permits this. And it's why the GPL doesn't prohibit shipping as part of a proprietary suite, and why the LGPL exists.)
Sign in to participate in the conversation

Server run by the main developers of the project 🐘 It is not focused on any particular niche interest - everyone is welcome as long as you follow our code of conduct!