> Sorry, we don't accept code contributions and direct you to the original libxml2 project.<p>This has me puzzled to the point of being dumbfounded: If libxml2-ee has fixed many security and other flaws in libxml2, then what's the point of directing people back to a project that is relatively flawed?<p>Licencing it as AGPL is also interesting, since the original was MIT, though I'm not sure they've worked out all of the kinks, given this example from one of the M4 files:<p><pre><code> # LICENSE
#
# Copyright (c) 2011 Maarten Bosmans <mkbosmans@gmail.com>
#
# Copying and distribution of this file, with or without modification, are
# permitted in any medium without royalty provided the copyright notice
# and this notice are preserved. This file is offered as-is, without any
# warranty.</code></pre>
You can't just take an MIT/X11 licence, remove it, and relicense it as it's an explicit violation of the MIT/X11 licence. This however only applies to the original code, so any new addition can be under whatever licence you want, including a more restrictive one. That doesn't change your obligation to reproduce the previous copyright notice as instructed by the licence you got the code under
I get what Nick is trying to do (allow F/OSS to continue receiving security fixes while requiring commercial users to pay), even forwarded his call for help or other support last year. I'm not sure though relicensing MIT code under AGPL is legally sound if your additions are just bug fixes.
In practice, how would you differentiate old code from new code when changes start to flow in?
Correct, not many folks understand this.
Presumably, this is (or will be) dual-licensed to enterprise customers who want the bug fixes but don't want to publish their code in accordance with the AGPL. Dual-licensing is much simpler for the author if he doesn't accept contributions.