On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 4:13 PM, Robert Greayer <robgrea...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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).
IANAL either, but my understanding is that judges take a very dim view of attempts like this to evade the requirements of a license. If a piece of software is built on another piece of software, it doesn't matter if you're looking at source code or a binary. I can write the SFLC and pose a hypothetical situation that captures the gist of what we're talking about, and post the response here, if anyone is interested. _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
