RE: [xml] What steps to take to embed libxml2 in a proprietary ap plication (and yes, i've read the FAQ... 8)

["Henke, Markus" <Markus_Henke ordat com>]

Thanx for your answer, Daniel.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Daniel Veillard [mailto:veillard redhat com]
> Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2001 1:48 PM
> To: Henke, Markus
> Cc: 'xml gnome org'
> Subject: Re: [xml] What steps to take to embed libxml2 in a 
> proprietary
> application (and yes, i've read the FAQ... 8)
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 06, 2001 at 01:00:11PM +0100, Henke, Markus wrote:
> > My problem is, that im unsure about what steps i've to take 
> to keep all
> > suppositions given by the libxml2-license(s) (and to keep 
> leg./political
> > correctness... 8o)
> > And pls believe me, i've tried to find it out on my own, 
> but now i'm stuck.
> > That's what i'm strive with:
> >
> > - libxml2 is released under LPGL (library flavour) and W3C IPR, FAQ
> > predicates that they are compatible
>
>   This "and" means you can pick either licence. So either you comply
> to the LGPL or you comply to the W3C IPR.

OK, that's clear.

>   I think that the LGPL ask you to provide back enhancement 
> you may have
> made to the library. If you didn't modify it, no work needed.

Not modified yet. Maybe i need to make changes to run libxml2 on MPE i/X...
 
>   On the other hand if you made changes to the library but don't want
> to provide them back...

That's no problem. If i ever apply changes (that makes sense) i will provide
them back.
But there is section 6 in the LGPL that says:

" 6. As an exception to the Sections above, you may also compile or link a
'work that uses the Library' with the Library to produce a work containing
portions of the Library, and distribute that work under terms of your
choice,
<here it goes/>
provided that the terms permit modification of the work for the customer's
own
use and reverse engineering for debugging such modifications."

It's the last part that makes me trouble, don't know what to do to comply
with that???

> ...you can use it under the W3C IPR, but in 
> that case
> there is a small advertizing clause.

Yep, it says that i must NOT use the name of copyright holders (that is
you?)
in any advetising. Well, that wouldn't be problem.
Havn't i to place a notice that the proprietary software uses libxml2?
And it says that i've to include "Any pre-existing intellectual
property disclaimers,notices, or terms and conditions...".
Are there any? If not, i've to include a copyright notice. Which one?
Is libxml2 a "W3C work" in terms of the IPR so that i include the there
proposed?
Where to place that notice?...
 
>   Those are advices from the principal author, I'm not a 
> lawyer and don't intend to turn into one.

Sympathize with that. 
My head is spinning as i try to understand that language...  80

> That's my understanding of both Licence and the
> guidelines I expect people to follow, ...

It's understood that i'll follow these guidelines
(that's what i actual try, but i doubt that i've got them right...)

> but it is not a legal advice on those Licences.

Sigh... I fear that i've to find some legal certitude.
 
> Daniel

Thanx & Ciao, Markus

> -- 
> Daniel Veillard      | Red Hat Network https://rhn.redhat.com/
> veillard redhat com  | libxml Gnome XML XSLT toolkit  
http://xmlsoft.org/
http://veillard.com/ | Rpmfind RPM search engine http://rpmfind.net/