XML::Parse licensing now microsoft ??
 

hi. i could not find XML::Parse on CPAN it's too unwieldy. so many versions of same name all claiming to be "low level" XML::Parse but i need the unix one for building X11 keyboard depends on intltool-0.33.

So i go and find wget http://ftp.gnome.org/mirror/CPAN/aut...er.2.30.tar.gz

and i find depends libexpat has been removed. so i go and find

http://sourceforge.net/projects/expa...t-2.0.1.tar.gz

but i see many expat files data are (inside) Microsoft VC++ 6.0 developer files and also claims that Thailand gov computer science research has copy rights on many headers and that Thailand is temporarily yeilding rights to use many files - but that Microsoft has never released rights and there is no licensing (n.i. the one on the VC++6.0 CD i'm about to mention).

I'm absolutely sure VC++ 6.0 files come with a license that say all work done on a computer running MIcrosoft tools are INFACT owned by microsoft unless printed on paper (which is mostly useless for software yet read the license: your C project is NOT yours if any microsoft files are with it or running it.) That microsoft retains the right to transfer your work to their company and claim ownership and has "rights to review" all such software as well.

---------------------------

I didnt know Microsoft and Thailand made libexpat and am confused how it can be in my @ Debian distribution if that is true (i did not install it from the non-free directory !)

is there another peice of software by a different name that is a substitute that doesn't have all rights reserved (allowign copying) by Microsoft and Thailand Government ?

I looked on CPAN but that's mostly Microsoft 8 developers uploading MING files or something.

-------------------
i'm very confused i thought sourceforge was started by RedHat for unix things i'm finding Microsoft projects having the same name as unix ones that are non-free

That's an extremely elaborate conspiracy theory to explain the removal of a dependency. Sheesh.

Obviously, this is absolute nonsense. Produce the license if you want to argue.

And if you looked deeply enough at the headers to see the copyright messages, then you should have seen that the copyright messages explicitly referred to a file named COPYING, which actually spelled out the license terms. Here's a copy which is identical to the one in the tarball:

https://github.com/LuaDist/libexpat/blob/master/COPYING

I don't see any problem with the license terms.

Not sure what you're talking about. You're incorrect in stating anything developed in MS tools is owned by MS. That's simply not true; show me where in their license it states that.

Also, Expat XML parser is licensed with the MIT license. That's one of the most liberal licenses in which it simply states not to sue and to include the license if you use significant portions of their code in your software. I don't know of a less restrictive license.

You seem to be confused because sourceforge was not started by RedHat.