On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 4:46 PM, Tom Tobin <korp...@korpios.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 3:30 PM, Ben Franksen <ben.frank...@online.de> > wrote: > > Ketil Malde wrote: > >> Your contributions could still be licensed under a different license > >> (e.g. BSD), as long as the licensing doesn't prevent somebody else to > >> pick it up and relicense it under GPL. > >> > >> At least, that's how I understand things. > > > > Right. So hakyll is absolutely fine with a BSD3 license, AFAICS. > > Seriously, no, this is *totally* wrong reading of the GPL, probably > fostered by a misunderstanding of the term "GPL-compatible license". > GPL-compatible means the compatibly-licensed work can be incorporated > into the GPL'd work (the whole of which is GPL'd), *not the other way > around*. If you are forming a derivative work based on the GPL'd > work, and thus you have to release that derivative work under the GPL. > The crux here is that the source code of hakyll, released on hackage, is not a derivative of Pandoc (it contains, as far as I understand it, no Pandoc source code). A compiled executable *is* a derivative of Pandoc, so anyone who *distributes* a compiled executable would need to make *all* the source available under the GPL (including the hakyll source). Since the hakyll package is released under BSD3, this would be allowed (AIUI, IANAL).
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
