Re: [xml] The MIT License -> GPL?

On Fri, Aug 06, 2004 at 11:25:44PM -0400, Bob Rossi wrote:
in the MIT license that there is the permission to sublicense. Does this
mean that I can take the library and then license it under the GPL?

  Sublicence is not relicencing. You cannot do this, well I don't think so,
and I would call this a fork considered hostile in my view. Do not do this
this is foolish, I see no reason for this, this brings nothing to this
project, I would take it quite personally as an attack, you're warned !

Hehe, you seem a little angry here. Why? Believe me, I am not going to
fork the project :)

  If you take libxml2 source, put it under a different Licence, then it's
a fork, it's also a misapropriation of Copyright, something people can
rightly take offense at.

I guess I was under the impression that the MIT license grants the user
to use the software and modify it, without the condition of keeping the
modified work under the same license. So, why couldn't I take libxml2,
and just use it in a GPL'd program and

  That's fine

say libxml2 is GPL? This is all I

  That's not fine, you don't have Copyright for this software. See Bjorn
answer for more details.

was wondering, I wasn't pulling out the big guns :)

Either way, I was just curious. If I can link an MIT license library to a
GPL'd program,

  yes definitely, like for X-Window libraries.

than this satisfies my need. Again, I am very thankful
for the great work put into this library.

  Okidoc, all cleared,


Daniel Veillard      | Red Hat Desktop team
veillard redhat com  | libxml GNOME XML XSLT toolkit | Rpmfind RPM search engine

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]