On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 4:38 PM, Robert Greayer <robgrea...@gmail.com> wrote: > Not to belabor the point (I hope), but consider the following situation -- > if the current version of Pandoc, 1.2.1, were released under BSD3, not GPL, > it would be obvious that the current version of hakyll could be released as > BSD3 as well. After said hakyll release, the Pandoc maintainer would be > perfectly within his rights to release an API compatible 1.2.2 version of > Pandoc, this time licensed under the GPL. People installing hakyll with > cabal might now be building a version of hakyll containing both GPL and BSD3 > code. This is not under either author's control, and is perfectly > allowable. If the person downloading chooses to redistribute the hakyll > executable he's built, he must be aware of and comply with his > responsibilities under the GPL, but those would be his responsibilities, not > those of the original author of hakyll. (AIUI -- IANAL).
The compatible-API issue is very murky — it does indeed seem weird that creating an API-compatible BSD'd library would magically "release" users. I've seen other discussions regarding this, and about the sanest conclusion I've drawn is "ask your lawyer". :-/ _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe