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 <wellnho...@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 > >
_______________________________________________ xml mailing list, project page http://xmlsoft.org/ xml@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/xml
