Thanks for bringing this issue up. We take license conformance very seriously and want to be sure that we’re correctly representing the license status on each package in the ROS ecosystem.
In this case, I’m a little confused: the header file that you mention states that it is released under the GNU LGPL:
which agrees with the license tag in that package:
Can you clarify where you’re seeing the reference to xmlrpcpp being covered by the GNU GPL (as opposed to the GNU LGPL)?