On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 4:56 PM, Ben Franksen <ben.frank...@online.de> wrote: >> On Tue, 8 Dec 2009, Tom Tobin wrote: >>> 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*. > > No. See http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhatIsCompatible > > Quote: > > "What does it mean to say that two licenses are compatible? > > In order to combine two programs (or substantial parts of them) into a > larger work, you need to have permission to use both programs in this way. > If the two programs' licenses permit this, they are compatible. If there is > no way to satisfy both licenses at once, they are incompatible.[...]"
That's what compatibility means in general for any set of licenses, yes. > and http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhatDoesCompatMean > > "What does it mean to say a license is compatible with the GPL? > > It means that the other license and the GNU GPL are compatible; you can > combine code released under the other license with code released under the > GNU GPL in one larger program." And, yes — this is what I said. ^_^ > Ganesh Sittampalam wrote: >> One >> might argue that the hakyll itself must be a derivative work as it builds >> on pandoc, > > If this were so, then /all/ of Linux (including all the thousands of > programs found on linux distributions) would have to be licensed under GPL, > which is clearly not the case. No, it doesn't work that way; merely running a program under GPL'd Linux isn't the same thing. _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
