Re: [libxml++] Licensing

[Jonathan Wakely <cow compsoc man ac uk>]

On Thu, Sep 09, 2004 at 04:36:41PM +0200, Christophe de VIENNE wrote:

> Dear all,
> 
> Recently a developper from a big company (I've been asked not to tell 
> which one) contacted be about libxml++ license.

I realise this has been resolved by changing the website, but I've only
just read the mails and wanted to comment...

> Their legal deparment, to allow the use of a GPLed C++ library, 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"

If the legal team is incapable of interpreting the LGPL then they should
contact the FSF, not request that every project using the licence
changes the wording for their benefit.

> My personnal opinion is that this point is ok, and if adding it to the 
> license as a clarification allows more people to use libxml++, I'd like 
> to do it.

Adding that to the licence would be a big mistake. It would make the
libxml++ licence different to every other LGPL licence, and would
require legal teams to analyse it separately. It is much better to use a
well-known and widely-used licence _without_modifications_ so that if
the legal team has already decided it is OK to use code under that
licence then they don't have to look again for each new piece of code
with that licence.

Adding text to the website to clarify the meaning is the best solution
IMHO.

jon


-- 
"It is easier to port a shell than a shell script."
	- Larry Wall