Re: [libxml++] Licensing

[Christophe de Vienne <cdevienne alphacent com>]

Murray Cumming wrote:

> > Dear all,
> >
> > Recently a developper from a big company (I've been asked not to tell
> > which one) contacted be about libxml++ license.
> >
> > Their legal deparment, to allow the use of a GPLed C++ library,
> >    
>
> libxml++ is not GPLed. It is LGPLed, so the question seems to be
> completely irrelevant. They can do whatever they want - this is maybe a
> simpler explanation for them:
> http://www.gtkmm.org/license.shtml
>  

My mistake, the request I had concerned the LGPL.

> Here are some things that they can not do:
> 1. Link statically (instead of dynamically) to libxml++.
> 2. Change their own copy of libxml++ and distribute object code (for
> instance, an application+DLLs that a user installs) for that changed
> libxml++, but then refuse to give the changes to people who have received
> the object code.
>
> You might want to put a similar clarification on a page on the website,
> and you might want to say that that, of course, C++ derivation is not
> considered different to normal use of a C function. It's the first time
> that I've heard of anybody being confused about that though.
>  

Ok, I'll see if a simple clarification of what the LGPL allow/forbid on 
the website is enough for them (from what I understood it should).

> > need the
> > copyright owner to clarify a quite simple point, about deriving classes
> > from libxml++.
> > The clarification has been expressed like this :
> >
> > "FOR THE AVOIDANCE OF ANY DOUBT, DERIVING SUB-CLASSES BASED ON LIBXML++
> > CLASSES IN A PROPRIETARY FILE DOES NOT MAKE SUCH PROPRIETARY FILE A WORK
> > BASED ON LIBXML++, PROVIDED THAT SUCH PROPRIETARY FILE IS NOT ITSELF A
> > LIBRARY"
> >    
>
> 1. If we were talking about the GPL then this would be a false statement,
> because you can not derive from a C++ class without in some way linking to
> the GPLed code.
>  
We were speaking of the LGPL, sorry about my little mistake :-\

> 2. For both, the GPL and LGPL, nobody care's whether your proprietary work
> is a library or a standalone application - both would have to link to the
> GPL/LGPLed code.
>  
That's an important point. Thanks for highlighting it.


Christophe