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 <louri...@gmail.com> : To: veill...@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 veill...@redhat.com | libxml Gnome XML XSLT toolkit http://xmlsoft.org/ http://veillard.com/ | virtualization library http://libvirt.org/ _______________________________________________ xml mailing list, project page http://xmlsoft.org/ xml@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/xml
