Re: [xml] License confusion

[Sander Vesik <Sander Vesik Sun COM>]

On Fri, 25 Oct 2002, Daniel Veillard wrote:

> On Fri, Oct 25, 2002 at 12:18:28PM +0000, uttam rao wrote:
> > Hello sir,
> > I want to use libxml in one of our commercial product.
> > I saw on the website that it released under 'MIT' license which allows me to 
> > use it inside my commercial product without publishing my source codes. But 
> > in the downloaded package of libxml in file 'copying' there is a description 
> > of 'GNU LIBRARY GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE' so which one is the right one.
> > In short does it force me to publish my software freely if I use libxml?
>
>   Recent libxml2 release are under the MIT licence. Older ones
> were under the LGPL (or W3C IPR). 
>   Use a recent one.

Automake has a "feature" in which it copies in a file that contains GNU
GPL into a file called COPYING if you don't already have such (and then
makes sure it gets copied into the tarball when you do make dist). So the
easiest way to avoid confusion is to have a file called COPYING that
contains the actual licence...

> Daniel
>
> -- 
> 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/

        Sander

        There are voices in the street,
        And the sound of running feet,
        And they whisper the word --
        Revolution!