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

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][], 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?


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


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.


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