Re: [xml] [libxslt] GPL-licensed file being distributed with MIT-licensed libxslt

[Mike Dalessio <mike dalessio gmail com>]

Hi Nick,

Thanks for replying. I personally don't think think it's an issue, either.

But I'm not a lawyer, and some lawyers have noticed and *do* think it's a problem, and have reached out to me about it (as I'm a maintainer of [Nokogiri][https://github.com/sparklemotion/nokogiri], which redistributes libxml2).

Let's imagine there *is* a legal problem -- just so we can determine what's possible. In that case, would the libxml2 maintainers consider either removing those files, or replacing them with examples that are MIT-licensed?

-m

On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 5:11 PM, Nick Wellnhofer <wellnhofer aevum de> wrote:

On 16/09/2015 22:51, Mike Dalessio wrote:

It appears as though the file

     libxslt-1.1.28/doc/tutorial2/libxslt_pipes.c

is GPL licensed.

This file is being distributed in the libxslt source tarball, which is at odds
with libxslt's MIT license.

The same goes for doc/tutorial/libxslt_tutorial.c which libxslt_pipes.c claims to be based on. Both files are based on the MIT-licensed xsltproc.c but there's nothing wrong with that.

Any thoughts on what, if anything, should be done about it?

It's only part of the documentation, so I don't see a problem.

Nick