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

[Daniel Veillard <veillard redhat com>]

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

-- 
Daniel Veillard      | Red Hat Desktop team http://redhat.com/
veillard redhat com  | libxml GNOME XML XSLT toolkit  http://xmlsoft.org/
http://veillard.com/ | Rpmfind RPM search engine http://rpmfind.net/