On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 04:53:08PM +0800, Daniel Veillard wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 11:11:53PM +0200, Nick Wellnhofer 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.
>
> Simplest is to find and ask the authors if they are fine relicencing
> those, hopefully they see no problem and I will fix this, I tried to contact
> them, let's see how it goes,
So I reached to John Fleck and he's fine with this
https://twitter.com/jfleck/status/655017833206714368
as well as Panos
: Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2015 13:43:45 +0300
: From: Panos Louridas <louridas gmail com>
: To: veillard redhat com
: Subject: Re: Licence of example in libxslt
:
: Hi Daniel,
:
: Yes, sure, no problem. What do you need from me to do this?
:
: Cheers,
:
: Panos.
So I think we can remove the GPL header making the inherited MIT licence
kick in:
https://git.gnome.org/browse/libxslt/commit/?id=fd83a88ce3f68db599a3a2c8f018cbc66f9be19b
so tell me how many hours of lawyer time were wasted on this issue ;-) ?
Daniel
--
Daniel Veillard | Open Source and Standards, Red Hat
veillard redhat com | libxml Gnome XML XSLT toolkit http://xmlsoft.org/
http://veillard.com/ | virtualization library http://libvirt.org/