On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 4:59 AM, Ketil Malde <ke...@malde.org> wrote: > Tom Tobin <korp...@korpios.com> writes: >> If it turns out that Hakyll *is* okay to be BSD3 licensed so >> long as neither any binary nor the GPL'd work's source is distributed >> under non-GPL terms, well ... I'll say that the meaning of "BSD >> licensed" will have become much less reliable, since it means you >> actually have to trace the genealogy of the libraries you use *all* >> the way back in order to understand the situation for certain. > > How so? To me it's the exact converse: if the author of Hakyll may > *not* distribute his work under the BSD license, just because it is > intended to be linked with some GPL code, this complicates issues > tremendously.
For instance, it would mean that businesses which may be writing proprietary software can't assume they can freely use a liberally licensed (e.g., BSD3) library — which would *completely* go against the prevailing understanding of liberally licensed software. Tainting your software with a GPL dependency without realizing it is a terrifying prospect (and certainly one of the questions I'd now like to pose to the SFLC). _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
