Ivan Lazar Miljenovic <ivan.miljeno...@gmail.com> wrote: > For example, see the license for cpphs [1]; on Hackage it's listed as > "LGPL" whereas the library is LGPL and the program is GPL. > Output from GPL programs is licensed under whatever license its input is licensed under (that is, the GPL doesn't say anything and forbids additional usage restrictions), I think the most prominent example is gcc, which you may use to develop closed-source programs.
It's common to see programs under GPL and standard library code that is included by default under less restrictive licenses: If GHC was GPL, chances would be high that the RTS, itself, would still be licensed under BSD or similar. Doing otherwise just invites either forks or a community that is completely lacking any commercial members, both of which are usually not intended, at all. ...but that doesn't answer why cpphs is GPL/LGPL (as it does not inject any standard library code into its output[1]). I think it's the usual reason: The author generally wants GPL, but doesn't mind if anyone develops another program that does something the library part can be used for. [1] At least in Germany, there's no way in hell you could claim copyright on injected {-# LINE #-} pragmas ("Schaffungshoehe"). I will pity you if that's possible under your legislation -- (c) this sig last receiving data processing entity. Inspect headers for copyright history. All rights reserved. Copying, hiring, renting, performance and/or quoting of this signature prohibited. _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe