Re: [Haskell-cafe] GPL answers from the SFLC (WAS: Re: ANN: hakyll-0.1)
Probably, a considerable part of beginner-programmers (also in our community), who are interested in GPL ideas, may want to use some similar GPL clarification: about being "dependent work" is not equal to "derived work". I guess, an article in haskell-wiki (clarifying situation with GPL) would be nice to have. IMHO they shouldn't equalize terms "dependent" and "deriving" - that's just silly. Reagards, Andrey Rafael Almeida wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 2:59 PM, Job Vranish wrote: > > Linux license specifically single that case out of the license > restrictions. From the COPYING file in linux's source: > >NOTE! This copyright does *not* cover user programs that use kernel > services by normal system calls - this is merely considered normal > use > of the kernel, and does *not* fall under the heading of "derived > work". > Also note that the GPL below is copyrighted by the Free Software > Foundation, but the instance of code that it refers to (the Linux > kernel) is copyrighted by me and others who actually wrote it. > > Also note that the only valid version of the GPL as far as the kernel > is concerned is _this_ particular version of the license (ie v2, not > v2.2 or v3.x or whatever), unless explicitly otherwise stated. > ___ > Haskell-Cafe mailing list > Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org > http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe > > -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/GPL-answers-from-the-SFLC-%28WAS%3A-Re%3A-ANN%3A-hakyll-0.1%29-tp27783997p27803729.html Sent from the Haskell - Haskell-Cafe mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Re: [Haskell-cafe] GPL answers from the SFLC (WAS: Re: ANN: hakyll-0.1)
Am Donnerstag, 4. März 2010 18:57:03 schrieb MightyByte: > Interesting. It seems to me that the only solution for the > BSD-oriented haskell community is to practically boycott GPL'd > libraries. From what I understand, this is exactly what the LGPL is > for. I've known the basic idea behind the GPL/LGPL distinction for > quite awhile, but I didn't realize that mistaking the two had such > far-ranging consequences. Since GPL seems to be the big elephant in > the room, it seems very easy to make this mistake. At the very least > we should try to educate the community about this. To my knowledge, the LGPL only allows *linking* with non-(L)GPL software. But GHC doesn’t just link but performs massive cross-module inlining. So in my opinion, LGPL is not a solution, too. Use BSD3! Best wishes, Wolfgang ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Re: [Haskell-cafe] GPL answers from the SFLC (WAS: Re: ANN: hakyll-0.1)
Hi, On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 01:16:18AM +0300, Bulat Ziganshin wrote: > >> [...] The SFLC holds that a > >> library that depends on a GPL'd library must in turn be GPL'd, even if > >> the library is only distributed as source and not in binary form. > > > Was this a general statement > > yes. it's soul of GPL idea, and it's why BG called GPL a virus :) Oh, BSD3 or ISC licensed code is viral as well, but only on the source code level ;-) (if you redistribute the sources, you have to leave the license and the copyright marker intact) Anyway, I really think the SFLC people are telling lies here (or, as someone else wrote in this thread, are telling what they whish the GPL to imply). Applying some common sense tells me: If you write some code (library or program) that depends on some GPL licensed library, you can still redistribute your *source code* under whatever license you want, as long as your source code distribution does not contain copies (original or modified) from the GPL'd stuff it depends on. For binary products created from such a library combo, you have to apply the GPL, which should be fine if *your* code is BSD3 or ISC or something similar. But nobody can force you to apply a specific license to your *source code*, even if the binary (links against/calls functions provided by) a GPL'd library. Oh, and for the discussion about wether APIs may be license-worth, which also popped up in this thread; /* * Copyright (c) 2010 Matthias Kilian * * All rights reserverd. */ extern int foo(double bar); If you ever dare to write some C function `foo' that takes a double and returns an int, I'll sue you to death ;-) Yes, there are APIs more inventive than that example above, but they're just *interfaces*. There has to be a lot of brain used on some interface to make it a creative work. (Oh, monads jump to mind) Ciao, Kili ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Re: [Haskell-cafe] GPL answers from the SFLC (WAS: Re: ANN: hakyll-0.1)
On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 12:29:15PM +, Malcolm Wallace wrote:
>>> Background: X is a library distributed under the terms of the GPL. Y
>>> is another library which calls external functions in the API of X,
>>> and requires X to compile. X and Y have different authors.
>>>
>>> 1) Can the author of Y legally distribute the *source* of Y under a
>>> non-GPL license, such as the 3-clause BSD license or the MIT license?
>
> I believe the answer you got from SFLC ("no") contradicts what the
> authors of the GPL say about this case. viz:
>
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#LinkingWithGPL
>
Yes, to my knowledge what the SFLC said is also incorrect. Perhaps they
just erred on the side of 'just GPL it'. In any case, I wouldn't want
cabal/hackage to worry about such things for random uploaded packages,
it can't know if the GPL licenses have special exceptions or whatnot.
Unless of course someone where to write a formal combinator
language for expressing legal contracts.. :).
John
--
John Meacham - ⑆repetae.net⑆john⑈ - http://notanumber.net/
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Re: [Haskell-cafe] GPL answers from the SFLC (WAS: Re: ANN: hakyll-0.1)
On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 2:59 PM, Job Vranish wrote: > This seems really confusing. > > It would imply that if I write a library that is designed to talk to some > part of the linux kernel API (which is GPL'd) then I'd have to release my > library under the GPL. And anything that used my libraries API would need to > be GPL'd too, etc... > Which would mean that everything run in linux would need to be GPL'd, which > is just silly. Linux license specifically single that case out of the license restrictions. From the COPYING file in linux's source: NOTE! This copyright does *not* cover user programs that use kernel services by normal system calls - this is merely considered normal use of the kernel, and does *not* fall under the heading of "derived work". Also note that the GPL below is copyrighted by the Free Software Foundation, but the instance of code that it refers to (the Linux kernel) is copyrighted by me and others who actually wrote it. Also note that the only valid version of the GPL as far as the kernel is concerned is _this_ particular version of the license (ie v2, not v2.2 or v3.x or whatever), unless explicitly otherwise stated. ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Re: [Haskell-cafe] GPL answers from the SFLC (WAS: Re: ANN: hakyll-0.1)
This seems really confusing. It would imply that if I write a library that is designed to talk to some part of the linux kernel API (which is GPL'd) then I'd have to release my library under the GPL. And anything that used my libraries API would need to be GPL'd too, etc... Which would mean that everything run in linux would need to be GPL'd, which is just silly. - Job On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 12:22 PM, Robert Greayer wrote: > Pending an explicit response from the SFLC, I decided to ask the FSF > themselves what they thought of the Hackage/cabal situation. > Specifically, I asked this: > > > There is a website, 'Hackage' (http://hackage.haskell.org) that hosts > > source code packages for Haskell libraries and programs. The site > > hosts *only* source code, along with (text) descriptions of the > > packages. Each package hosted by the site is either source code for a > > library, for a program, or for both. > > > In the package description, a package author specifies what license > > applies to the source code, the common choices being LGPL, GPL, or > > BSD3. The package author also specifies what other packages in the > > repository the package may require to compile successfully. > > > The controversy in the community of users who use Hackage is whether > > or not it is a violation of the GPL for a package to be uploaded to > > Hackage specifying (for example) a BSD3 license for the code in the > > package, but also specifying that another package is a requirement for > > compilation, where that other package has been uploaded specifying (a > > version of) the GPL as its license. > > > The opinion of many in the community is that since Hackage hosts only > > source code, and does not in any way combine packages (any combination > > of packages is created when a user chooses to download and compile and > > link the individual packages) there is no problem: there are no > > 'derived works' combining GPL and non-GPL being distributed on the > > site. > > > Others believe that having a non-GPL package have as a dependency a > > GPL package is a problem for both the package author and for Hackage; > > that this in some way violates the GPL. > > > I don't believe this sort of situation is clearly addressed in your > > FAQ (at least not to the satisfaction of the Hackage user community). > > There's a certain amount of fear, uncertainty and doubt being spread > > about usage of the GPL on Hackage, which it would be great to dispel > > (or, confirm, as necessary). > > > Someone from the FSF responded as follows: > > > A work which extends or requires a GPL work will generally also need to > > be released under the GPL, unless the GPL work provides a specific > > exception for that case. You are already familiar with the FAQ; however, > > please note http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#OOPLang > > and http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#MereAggregation . > > There is no magic to the act of linking, compiling, or a function > > invocation; these are not defining moments. It is the level of > > integration and dependency which will define whether one work is a > > derivative of another. > > > Ultimately, the decision that one work is a derivative of another is a > > legal one which a court may have to decide for a particular case; a > > lawyer can give you a legal opinion. However, a good rule of thumb would > > be: if P is a GPL work, and Q is a work that would not function without > > P, then Q is probably a derivative of P and should only be conveyed to a > > third party or the public under a GPL license, in compliance with the > > license for P. > > > I hope that helps. > > > Thank you for your interest in free software! > > I am not a lawyer and the above is not legal advice. > > The opinions expressed above do not constitute an official position of > > the Free > > Software Foundation. > > > Luigi Bai > > FSF Associate Member > > Volunteer, licens...@gnu.org > > Of course, given the disclaimer at the bottom, this opinion is officially > no > better than any of our opinions on the matter. Nevertheless, I would at > least believe based on the above that this is what the FSF *wants* the GPL > to mean, and, by extension, would assume, barring other evidence that > this is what someone who chooses the GPL *wants* it to mean, and in > licensing any software that I write that depends on someone else's GPL'd > software, I'd respect those desires (without at all suggesting that this > has > any bearing on how the GPL would actually be interpreted in court). > > There's still a lot of gray area here -- the mere existence of a dependency > doesn't imply that a software package is useless without the dependency, > so there are many situations in which P could depend on Q and not be > a derivative of Q, because the dependency can be disabled in some way > and the software would still function. As an example -- pandoc can be > built with or without highlighting-kate, and is useful eith
Re: [Haskell-cafe] GPL answers from the SFLC (WAS: Re: ANN: hakyll-0.1)
Pending an explicit response from the SFLC, I decided to ask the FSF themselves what they thought of the Hackage/cabal situation. Specifically, I asked this: > There is a website, 'Hackage' (http://hackage.haskell.org) that hosts > source code packages for Haskell libraries and programs. The site > hosts *only* source code, along with (text) descriptions of the > packages. Each package hosted by the site is either source code for a > library, for a program, or for both. > In the package description, a package author specifies what license > applies to the source code, the common choices being LGPL, GPL, or > BSD3. The package author also specifies what other packages in the > repository the package may require to compile successfully. > The controversy in the community of users who use Hackage is whether > or not it is a violation of the GPL for a package to be uploaded to > Hackage specifying (for example) a BSD3 license for the code in the > package, but also specifying that another package is a requirement for > compilation, where that other package has been uploaded specifying (a > version of) the GPL as its license. > The opinion of many in the community is that since Hackage hosts only > source code, and does not in any way combine packages (any combination > of packages is created when a user chooses to download and compile and > link the individual packages) there is no problem: there are no > 'derived works' combining GPL and non-GPL being distributed on the > site. > Others believe that having a non-GPL package have as a dependency a > GPL package is a problem for both the package author and for Hackage; > that this in some way violates the GPL. > I don't believe this sort of situation is clearly addressed in your > FAQ (at least not to the satisfaction of the Hackage user community). > There's a certain amount of fear, uncertainty and doubt being spread > about usage of the GPL on Hackage, which it would be great to dispel > (or, confirm, as necessary). Someone from the FSF responded as follows: > A work which extends or requires a GPL work will generally also need to > be released under the GPL, unless the GPL work provides a specific > exception for that case. You are already familiar with the FAQ; however, > please note http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#OOPLang > and http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#MereAggregation . > There is no magic to the act of linking, compiling, or a function > invocation; these are not defining moments. It is the level of > integration and dependency which will define whether one work is a > derivative of another. > Ultimately, the decision that one work is a derivative of another is a > legal one which a court may have to decide for a particular case; a > lawyer can give you a legal opinion. However, a good rule of thumb would > be: if P is a GPL work, and Q is a work that would not function without > P, then Q is probably a derivative of P and should only be conveyed to a > third party or the public under a GPL license, in compliance with the > license for P. > I hope that helps. > Thank you for your interest in free software! > I am not a lawyer and the above is not legal advice. > The opinions expressed above do not constitute an official position of > the Free > Software Foundation. > Luigi Bai > FSF Associate Member > Volunteer, licens...@gnu.org Of course, given the disclaimer at the bottom, this opinion is officially no better than any of our opinions on the matter. Nevertheless, I would at least believe based on the above that this is what the FSF *wants* the GPL to mean, and, by extension, would assume, barring other evidence that this is what someone who chooses the GPL *wants* it to mean, and in licensing any software that I write that depends on someone else's GPL'd software, I'd respect those desires (without at all suggesting that this has any bearing on how the GPL would actually be interpreted in court). There's still a lot of gray area here -- the mere existence of a dependency doesn't imply that a software package is useless without the dependency, so there are many situations in which P could depend on Q and not be a derivative of Q, because the dependency can be disabled in some way and the software would still function. As an example -- pandoc can be built with or without highlighting-kate, and is useful either way. They're both GPL and by the same author, so there's no issue, but were that not the case it would seem obvious that pandoc isn't derivative of -kate, and thus could (by this reasoning) be released independently under different terms. The same may not be true of the hakyll / pandoc situation which sparked this controversy. Cheers, Rob ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Re: [Haskell-cafe] GPL answers from the SFLC (WAS: Re: ANN: hakyll-0.1)
On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 4:16 AM, Malcolm Wallace < malcolm.wall...@cs.york.ac.uk> wrote: > > The GPL specifically (and only) applies when code is "distributed" to >> others outside the originating authors' organisation. >> >> >> I'm pretty sure it says nothing about organizations. >> > > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#InternalDistribution > > This is not the GPL license, this is an FAQ written by someone at the FSF presumably about how they interpret the license. Since anyone can technically interpret this license in any way, and argue before a judge with their belief about their rights, I don't feel any better about this text. I think key to this is whether or not individuals within an organization own their own work or not. Sometimes people do retain ownership, though it's very very rare. In that case my handing software to someone I'm cooperating with could still claim their rights are being infringed under the GPL if I don't provide source code. > Is making and using multiple copies within one organization or company > “distribution”? > No, in that case the organization is just making the copies for itself. As > a consequence, a company or other organization can develop a modified > version and install that version through its own facilities, without giving > the staff permission to release that modified version to outsiders. > > However, when the organization transfers copies to other organizations or > individuals, that is distribution. In particular, providing copies to > contractors for use off-site is distribution. > > > Regards, >Malcolm___ > Haskell-Cafe mailing list > Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org > http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe > ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Re: [Haskell-cafe] GPL answers from the SFLC (WAS: Re: ANN: hakyll-0.1)
Background: X is a library distributed under the terms of the GPL.
Y is another library which calls external functions in the API of
X, and requires X to compile. X and Y have different authors.
1) Can the author of Y legally distribute the *source* of Y under a
non-GPL license, such as the 3-clause BSD license or the MIT license?
I believe the answer you got from SFLC ("no") contradicts what the
authors of the GPL say about this case. viz:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#LinkingWithGPL
"You have a GPL'ed program that I'd like to link with my code to build
a proprietary program. Does the fact that I link with your program
mean I have to GPL my program?
Not exactly. It means you must release your program under a license
compatible with the GPL (more precisely, compatible with one or more
GPL versions accepted by all the rest of the code in the combination
that you link). The combination itself is then available under those
GPL versions."
Furthermore, GNU publishes a list of licenses that are compatible with
the GPL, and that list includes BSD3 and MIT/X11.
Regards,
Malcolm
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Re: [Haskell-cafe] GPL answers from the SFLC (WAS: Re: ANN: hakyll-0.1)
> The GPL specifically (and only) applies when code is "distributed" to others outside the originating authors' organisation. I'm pretty sure it says nothing about organizations. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#InternalDistribution Is making and using multiple copies within one organization or company “distribution”? No, in that case the organization is just making the copies for itself. As a consequence, a company or other organization can develop a modified version and install that version through its own facilities, without giving the staff permission to release that modified version to outsiders. However, when the organization transfers copies to other organizations or individuals, that is distribution. In particular, providing copies to contractors for use off-site is distribution. Regards, Malcolm___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Re: [Haskell-cafe] GPL answers from the SFLC (WAS: Re: ANN: hakyll-0.1)
As always I'm still not a lawyer, so this is not legal advice... but here's how I think it works. If you need to talk to a lawyer to get this cleared up, do it. On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 2:30 AM, Malcolm Wallace < malcolm.wall...@cs.york.ac.uk> wrote: > On 5 March 2010 09:53, Magnus Therning wrote: >> >> Now I'm even more confused. How is hosting on Hackage an issue in [1]? >>> >> > The GPL specifically (and only) applies when code is "distributed" to > others outside the originating authors' organisation. > I'm pretty sure it says nothing about organizations. If I threw a flash stick with a binary of a program I wrote over my cubicle wall to say, my coworker, Steve, and I tried to tell him he couldn't have the source to my binary that I created based on a GPL'd program on that stick, he could say I've infringed on his rights under the GPL. > Hackage is a means of distributing such code. Because Hackage has received > the code from the author, it therefore has the same obligations (under the > GPL, or BSD, or whatever) as any other recipient. > Hackage has no obligations unless it's an intelligent entity. Hackage does not have to enforce the GPL, the author responsible for the perceived violation of the GPL must resolve it with the person claiming the violation, either by settling it inside or outside of court, by either making their code the GPL, or dealing with someone potentially bringing them in front of a judge. In fact the people running Hackage have now become the same as the person I threw my flash drive over the cube wall to, and have the same rights as Steve. > > To be clear, like any recipient, one treats the donor in good faith. That > is, one believes the license granted by the author (or upstream distributor) > is valid until notified otherwise. It is the author's responsibility to > check, not Hackage's. > EXACTLY :-) Now for a bit of personal reflection that you can ignore if you wish... Wouldn't it be excellent if Google could tell us just how many times innocent mailing lists like haskell-cafe have to put up with confusion over the GPL? Every single open source project I've ever been on has had a mailing list that has had this problem in the last 15 years I've been active in open source communities, and it just keeps rearing it's ugly head. It's really irritating and distracts people who'd rather be sharing their work with one another from doing so, completely thwarting the point of the FSF to begin with. As such I've long since abandoned any love for any form of the GPL, and much prefer licenses like the BSD license. > > Regards, >Malcolm > > > ___ > Haskell-Cafe mailing list > Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org > http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe > ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Re: [Haskell-cafe] GPL answers from the SFLC (WAS: Re: ANN: hakyll-0.1)
On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 2:19 AM, Stephen Tetley wrote: > On 5 March 2010 09:53, Magnus Therning wrote: > > > Now I'm even more confused. How is hosting on Hackage an issue in [1]? > > Hi Magnus > > The issue arouse when Tom Tobin spotted Hackage was hosting hakyll > (libBSD3) that depends in pandoc (libGPL). Hakyll's author is allowed > to privately write any code he wants that uses GPL code, Hackage come > into it as he published on Hackage. > Yes the author can privately license code to himself under any license he wants, but when he distributes code based on GPL'd code, it has to be GPL'd. That's why people hate this license, or love this license. For all the freedom it talks about it's awfully restrictive. Dave > > Best wishes > > Stephen > ___ > Haskell-Cafe mailing list > Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org > http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe > ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Re: [Haskell-cafe] GPL answers from the SFLC (WAS: Re: ANN: hakyll-0.1)
On 5 March 2010 09:53, Magnus Therning wrote: Now I'm even more confused. How is hosting on Hackage an issue in [1]? The GPL specifically (and only) applies when code is "distributed" to others outside the originating authors' organisation. Hackage is a means of distributing such code. Because Hackage has received the code from the author, it therefore has the same obligations (under the GPL, or BSD, or whatever) as any other recipient. To be clear, like any recipient, one treats the donor in good faith. That is, one believes the license granted by the author (or upstream distributor) is valid until notified otherwise. It is the author's responsibility to check, not Hackage's. Regards, Malcolm ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Re: [Haskell-cafe] GPL answers from the SFLC (WAS: Re: ANN: hakyll-0.1)
On 5 March 2010 09:53, Magnus Therning wrote: > Now I'm even more confused. How is hosting on Hackage an issue in [1]? Hi Magnus The issue arouse when Tom Tobin spotted Hackage was hosting hakyll (libBSD3) that depends in pandoc (libGPL). Hakyll's author is allowed to privately write any code he wants that uses GPL code, Hackage come into it as he published on Hackage. Best wishes Stephen ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Re: [Haskell-cafe] GPL answers from the SFLC (WAS: Re: ANN: hakyll-0.1)
On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 09:38, Stephen Tetley wrote: > Hi Magnus > > The 'Why not LGPL' doesn't cover the particular argument here: > >> using the ordinary GPL for a library makes it available only for free >> programs. > > The particular concern we have here is quite specific, considering > (-->) to be a dependency, can Hackage libraries under BSD3 that depend > on libraries under GPL? > > [1] App --> libBSD3 --> libGPL > > > Any App built has to incorporate the GPL library - so the App has to > be GPL. -- No dispute --. > > Similar BSD3 is a GPL compatible library, so this dependency chain > would be legal: > > [2] App --> libGPL --> libBSD > > The argument is whether it is legal to distribute (read host on > Hackage) BSD3 libs that depend on GPL libs - formulation [1]. Now I'm even more confused. How is hosting on Hackage an issue in [1]? Both involved licenses are very liberal when it comes to distribution. The only issue I do see is that the author of libBSD3 is actually deluding her/him-self, since the use of libGPL means both libraries are in fact under GPL. I don't see this being anything that anyone involved with Hackage can be held responsible for, the responsibility must fall on the author of libBSD3. In this scenario I don't see Hackage as anything more than a conduit. /M -- Magnus Therning(OpenPGP: 0xAB4DFBA4) magnus＠therning．org Jabber: magnus＠therning．org http://therning.org/magnus identi.ca|twitter: magthe ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Re: [Haskell-cafe] GPL answers from the SFLC (WAS: Re: ANN: hakyll-0.1)
On 5 March 2010 09:38, Stephen Tetley wrote: > > Similar BSD3 is a GPL compatible library, so this dependency chain > would be legal: > > [2] App --> libGPL --> libBSD > Typo above - should be Similar BSD3 is a GPL compatible __license__, so this dependency chain would be legal: [2] App --> libGPL --> libBSD Apologies all ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Re: [Haskell-cafe] GPL answers from the SFLC (WAS: Re: ANN: hakyll-0.1)
Hi Magnus The 'Why not LGPL' doesn't cover the particular argument here: > using the ordinary GPL for a library makes it available only for free > programs. The particular concern we have here is quite specific, considering (-->) to be a dependency, can Hackage libraries under BSD3 that depend on libraries under GPL? [1] App --> libBSD3 --> libGPL Any App built has to incorporate the GPL library - so the App has to be GPL. -- No dispute --. Similar BSD3 is a GPL compatible library, so this dependency chain would be legal: [2] App --> libGPL --> libBSD The argument is whether it is legal to distribute (read host on Hackage) BSD3 libs that depend on GPL libs - formulation [1]. -- I'd have thought Harmony would be problematic for different reasons - i.e. coping the API of a copyright work. Best wishes Stephen ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Re: [Haskell-cafe] GPL answers from the SFLC (WAS: Re: ANN: hakyll-0.1)
On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 08:55, minh thu wrote: > 2010/3/5 Magnus Therning : >> On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 18:05, Stephen Tetley >> wrote: >>> Hi Tom >>> >>> Hmm, its seems I'm due to eat my hat... >>> >>> To me though, the judgement makes that insistence that using an API is >>> making a derivative work. I can't see how that squares up. >> >> That has, AFAIU, been the intention of the GPL all along. See e.g. >> http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html >> >> It also explains why there has been a discussion in the Linux kernel >> community about closed source drivers (e.g. nvidia). >> >> The LGPL was, AFAIU, written to explicitly allow a shift of license at >> the API level. Without the insistence you point out, GPL and LGPL >> would be pretty much the same license. > > I don't see how what you say is related by the link you provide. > > They say there is an advantage to make a library GPL when there is no > alternative so program using the library is required to be GPL too. As > an example, they licensed the C library LGPL because they were > already other available C library, so making their one GPL licensed > could not really drive more programs to be GPL. > > Indeed the boundary of a library is its API but that hardly translates > to say that the GPL covers the API. Ah, I might have misunderstood the whole thread then. I thought the discussion was about using the API of a GPLd library. While your comment suggests it's actually about re-implementing a GPLd library, making it API compatible, and releasing the re-implementation under another license. In that case wouldn't a project like Harmony (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harmony_toolkit) be problematic? So would editline's mode for compatibility with readline, right? (GNU TLS would probably not get in trouble for providing an OpenSSL compatibility layer though.) /M -- Magnus Therning(OpenPGP: 0xAB4DFBA4) magnus＠therning．org Jabber: magnus＠therning．org http://therning.org/magnus identi.ca|twitter: magthe ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Re: [Haskell-cafe] GPL answers from the SFLC (WAS: Re: ANN: hakyll-0.1)
2010/3/5 Magnus Therning : > On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 18:05, Stephen Tetley wrote: >> Hi Tom >> >> Hmm, its seems I'm due to eat my hat... >> >> To me though, the judgement makes that insistence that using an API is >> making a derivative work. I can't see how that squares up. > > That has, AFAIU, been the intention of the GPL all along. See e.g. > http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html > > It also explains why there has been a discussion in the Linux kernel > community about closed source drivers (e.g. nvidia). > > The LGPL was, AFAIU, written to explicitly allow a shift of license at > the API level. Without the insistence you point out, GPL and LGPL > would be pretty much the same license. I don't see how what you say is related by the link you provide. They say there is an advantage to make a library GPL when there is no alternative so program using the library is required to be GPL too. As an example, they licensed the C library LGPL because they were already other available C library, so making their one GPL licensed could not really drive more programs to be GPL. Indeed the boundary of a library is its API but that hardly translates to say that the GPL covers the API. Cheers, Thu ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Re: [Haskell-cafe] GPL answers from the SFLC (WAS: Re: ANN: hakyll-0.1)
On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 12:53 AM, Kevin Jardine wrote: > I'm a Haskell newbie but long time open source developer and I've been > following this thread with some interest. > > The GPL is not just a license - it is a form of social engineering and social > contract. The idea if I use the GPL is that I am releasing free and open > source software to the community. You are welcome to use it for any purpose > but in exchange you must also agree to release any software you create that > uses my software as free and open source. > > That is the difference between GPL and BSD type licenses. The GPL very > deliberately creates an obligation. Yes, that can be inconvenient. It is > meant to be inconvenient. > > Actually the GPL reminds me of a Haskell concept that I am struggling with > right now - the monad. When I started writing Haskell code I was always > trying to mix pure and IO code and I soon learned that once I used the IO > monad I was stuck within it. The monad creates an inconvenient obligation and > any IO code can only be used within other IO code. There are good reasons for > monads (just as, in my view, there are good reasons for the GPL) but using > them means that I need to make a lot of changes to the way I write software. Sure. You can put a GPL license on any software: license :: a -> GPL a And if you could have used some public domain package 'a' to create some GPL'd software, then you can use the GPL'd 'a' to create that same software. usage :: (a -> GPL b) -> GPL a -> GPL b :-P Luke ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Re: [Haskell-cafe] GPL answers from the SFLC (WAS: Re: ANN: hakyll-0.1)
On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 18:05, Stephen Tetley wrote: > Hi Tom > > Hmm, its seems I'm due to eat my hat... > > To me though, the judgement makes that insistence that using an API is > making a derivative work. I can't see how that squares up. That has, AFAIU, been the intention of the GPL all along. See e.g. http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html It also explains why there has been a discussion in the Linux kernel community about closed source drivers (e.g. nvidia). The LGPL was, AFAIU, written to explicitly allow a shift of license at the API level. Without the insistence you point out, GPL and LGPL would be pretty much the same license. /M -- Magnus Therning(OpenPGP: 0xAB4DFBA4) magnus＠therning．org Jabber: magnus＠therning．org http://therning.org/magnus identi.ca|twitter: magthe ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
[Haskell-cafe] GPL answers from the SFLC (WAS: Re: ANN: hakyll-0.1)
I'm a Haskell newbie but long time open source developer and I've been following this thread with some interest. The GPL is not just a license - it is a form of social engineering and social contract. The idea if I use the GPL is that I am releasing free and open source software to the community. You are welcome to use it for any purpose but in exchange you must also agree to release any software you create that uses my software as free and open source. That is the difference between GPL and BSD type licenses. The GPL very deliberately creates an obligation. Yes, that can be inconvenient. It is meant to be inconvenient. Actually the GPL reminds me of a Haskell concept that I am struggling with right now - the monad. When I started writing Haskell code I was always trying to mix pure and IO code and I soon learned that once I used the IO monad I was stuck within it. The monad creates an inconvenient obligation and any IO code can only be used within other IO code. There are good reasons for monads (just as, in my view, there are good reasons for the GPL) but using them means that I need to make a lot of changes to the way I write software. Kevin ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Re[2]: [Haskell-cafe] GPL answers from the SFLC (WAS: Re: ANN: hakyll-0.1)
Hello Matthias, Friday, March 5, 2010, 12:56:48 AM, you wrote: >> [...] The SFLC holds that a >> library that depends on a GPL'd library must in turn be GPL'd, even if >> the library is only distributed as source and not in binary form. > Was this a general statement yes. it's soul of GPL idea, and it's why BG called GPL a virus :) -- Best regards, Bulatmailto:bulat.zigans...@gmail.com ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Re: [Haskell-cafe] GPL answers from the SFLC (WAS: Re: ANN: hakyll-0.1)
On Thu, Mar 04, 2010 at 11:34:24AM -0600, Tom Tobin wrote: > [...] The SFLC holds that a > library that depends on a GPL'd library must in turn be GPL'd, even if > the library is only distributed as source and not in binary form. Was this a general statement or specific to the fact that (at least GHC) is doing heavy inlining? Anyway, I think the SFLC is the wrong institution to ask, since they're biased. Ciao, Kili ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Re: [Haskell-cafe] GPL answers from the SFLC (WAS: Re: ANN: hakyll-0.1)
Before taking any action with respect to cabal or hackage, etc., I'd think people would want to see their explicit response. On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 12:34 PM, Tom Tobin wrote: > After politely pestering them again, I finally heard back from the > Software Freedom Law Center regarding our GPL questions (quoted > below). > > I exchanged several emails to clarify the particular issues; in short, > the answers are "No", "No", "N/A", and "N/A". The SFLC holds that a > library that depends on a GPL'd library must in turn be GPL'd, even if > the library is only distributed as source and not in binary form. > They offered to draft some sort of explicit response if we'd find it > useful. > > Maybe it would be useful if Cabal had some sort of licensing check > command that could be run on a .cabal file, and warn an author if any > libraries it depends on (directly or indirectly) are GPL'd but the > .cabal itself does not have the license set to GPL. > > > On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 10:21 PM, Tom Tobin wrote: >> I'd like to get these questions out to the SFLC so we can satisfy our >> curiosity; at the moment, here's what I'd be asking: >> >> Background: X is a library distributed under the terms of the GPL. Y >> is another library which calls external functions in the API of X, and >> requires X to compile. X and Y have different authors. >> >> 1) Can the author of Y legally distribute the *source* of Y under a >> non-GPL license, such as the 3-clause BSD license or the MIT license? >> >> 2) If the answer to 1 is "no", is there *any* circumstance under which >> the author of Y can distribute the source of Y under a non-GPL >> license? >> >> 3) If the answer to 1 is "yes", what specifically would trigger the >> redistribution of a work in this scenario under the GPL? Is it the >> distribution of X+Y *together* (whether in source or binary form)? >> >> 4) If the answer to 1 is "yes", does this mean that a "BSD-licensed" >> library does not necessarily mean that closed-source software can be >> distributed which is based upon such a library (if it so happens that >> the library in turn depends on a copylefted library)? >> >> By the way, apologies to the author of Hakyll — I'm sure this isn't >> what you had in mind when you announced your library! I'm just hoping >> that we can figure out what our obligations are based upon the GPL, >> since I'm not so sure myself anymore. >> > ___ > Haskell-Cafe mailing list > Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org > http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe > ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Re: [Haskell-cafe] GPL answers from the SFLC (WAS: Re: ANN: hakyll-0.1)
Hi Tom Hmm, its seems I'm due to eat my hat... To me though, the judgement makes that insistence that using an API is making a derivative work. I can't see how that squares up. Before I eat a hat, I'll wait for the explicit response if you don't mind. Best wishes Stephen ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Re: [Haskell-cafe] GPL answers from the SFLC (WAS: Re: ANN: hakyll-0.1)
Interesting. It seems to me that the only solution for the BSD-oriented haskell community is to practically boycott GPL'd libraries. From what I understand, this is exactly what the LGPL is for. I've known the basic idea behind the GPL/LGPL distinction for quite awhile, but I didn't realize that mistaking the two had such far-ranging consequences. Since GPL seems to be the big elephant in the room, it seems very easy to make this mistake. At the very least we should try to educate the community about this. On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 12:34 PM, Tom Tobin wrote: > After politely pestering them again, I finally heard back from the > Software Freedom Law Center regarding our GPL questions (quoted > below). > > I exchanged several emails to clarify the particular issues; in short, > the answers are "No", "No", "N/A", and "N/A". The SFLC holds that a > library that depends on a GPL'd library must in turn be GPL'd, even if > the library is only distributed as source and not in binary form. > They offered to draft some sort of explicit response if we'd find it > useful. > > Maybe it would be useful if Cabal had some sort of licensing check > command that could be run on a .cabal file, and warn an author if any > libraries it depends on (directly or indirectly) are GPL'd but the > .cabal itself does not have the license set to GPL. > > > On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 10:21 PM, Tom Tobin wrote: >> I'd like to get these questions out to the SFLC so we can satisfy our >> curiosity; at the moment, here's what I'd be asking: >> >> Background: X is a library distributed under the terms of the GPL. Y >> is another library which calls external functions in the API of X, and >> requires X to compile. X and Y have different authors. >> >> 1) Can the author of Y legally distribute the *source* of Y under a >> non-GPL license, such as the 3-clause BSD license or the MIT license? >> >> 2) If the answer to 1 is "no", is there *any* circumstance under which >> the author of Y can distribute the source of Y under a non-GPL >> license? >> >> 3) If the answer to 1 is "yes", what specifically would trigger the >> redistribution of a work in this scenario under the GPL? Is it the >> distribution of X+Y *together* (whether in source or binary form)? >> >> 4) If the answer to 1 is "yes", does this mean that a "BSD-licensed" >> library does not necessarily mean that closed-source software can be >> distributed which is based upon such a library (if it so happens that >> the library in turn depends on a copylefted library)? >> >> By the way, apologies to the author of Hakyll — I'm sure this isn't >> what you had in mind when you announced your library! I'm just hoping >> that we can figure out what our obligations are based upon the GPL, >> since I'm not so sure myself anymore. >> > ___ > Haskell-Cafe mailing list > Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org > http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe > ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Re: [Haskell-cafe] GPL answers from the SFLC (WAS: Re: ANN: hakyll-0.1)
2010/3/4 Tom Tobin : > After politely pestering them again, I finally heard back from the > Software Freedom Law Center regarding our GPL questions (quoted > below). > > I exchanged several emails to clarify the particular issues; in short, > the answers are "No", "No", "N/A", and "N/A". The SFLC holds that a > library that depends on a GPL'd library must in turn be GPL'd, even if > the library is only distributed as source and not in binary form. > They offered to draft some sort of explicit response if we'd find it > useful. > > Maybe it would be useful if Cabal had some sort of licensing check > command that could be run on a .cabal file, and warn an author if any > libraries it depends on (directly or indirectly) are GPL'd but the > .cabal itself does not have the license set to GPL. > > > On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 10:21 PM, Tom Tobin wrote: >> I'd like to get these questions out to the SFLC so we can satisfy our >> curiosity; at the moment, here's what I'd be asking: >> >> Background: X is a library distributed under the terms of the GPL. Y >> is another library which calls external functions in the API of X, and >> requires X to compile. X and Y have different authors. >> >> 1) Can the author of Y legally distribute the *source* of Y under a >> non-GPL license, such as the 3-clause BSD license or the MIT license? >> >> 2) If the answer to 1 is "no", is there *any* circumstance under which >> the author of Y can distribute the source of Y under a non-GPL >> license? >> >> 3) If the answer to 1 is "yes", what specifically would trigger the >> redistribution of a work in this scenario under the GPL? Is it the >> distribution of X+Y *together* (whether in source or binary form)? >> >> 4) If the answer to 1 is "yes", does this mean that a "BSD-licensed" >> library does not necessarily mean that closed-source software can be >> distributed which is based upon such a library (if it so happens that >> the library in turn depends on a copylefted library)? >> >> By the way, apologies to the author of Hakyll — I'm sure this isn't >> what you had in mind when you announced your library! I'm just hoping >> that we can figure out what our obligations are based upon the GPL, >> since I'm not so sure myself anymore. Hi, Great to have the answer but it's confusing to me... The next question that comes to mind is thus: What if a new library X' released under BSD or MIT license implements the X API (making possible to compile Y against it)? Can such a new library X' be licensed under something else than the GPL (we guess Yes because we don't think it is possible to license the API itself)? Why should the existence of X' make any difference for the author of Y? Cheers, Thu ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
[Haskell-cafe] GPL answers from the SFLC (WAS: Re: ANN: hakyll-0.1)
After politely pestering them again, I finally heard back from the Software Freedom Law Center regarding our GPL questions (quoted below). I exchanged several emails to clarify the particular issues; in short, the answers are "No", "No", "N/A", and "N/A". The SFLC holds that a library that depends on a GPL'd library must in turn be GPL'd, even if the library is only distributed as source and not in binary form. They offered to draft some sort of explicit response if we'd find it useful. Maybe it would be useful if Cabal had some sort of licensing check command that could be run on a .cabal file, and warn an author if any libraries it depends on (directly or indirectly) are GPL'd but the .cabal itself does not have the license set to GPL. On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 10:21 PM, Tom Tobin wrote: > I'd like to get these questions out to the SFLC so we can satisfy our > curiosity; at the moment, here's what I'd be asking: > > Background: X is a library distributed under the terms of the GPL. Y > is another library which calls external functions in the API of X, and > requires X to compile. X and Y have different authors. > > 1) Can the author of Y legally distribute the *source* of Y under a > non-GPL license, such as the 3-clause BSD license or the MIT license? > > 2) If the answer to 1 is "no", is there *any* circumstance under which > the author of Y can distribute the source of Y under a non-GPL > license? > > 3) If the answer to 1 is "yes", what specifically would trigger the > redistribution of a work in this scenario under the GPL? Is it the > distribution of X+Y *together* (whether in source or binary form)? > > 4) If the answer to 1 is "yes", does this mean that a "BSD-licensed" > library does not necessarily mean that closed-source software can be > distributed which is based upon such a library (if it so happens that > the library in turn depends on a copylefted library)? > > By the way, apologies to the author of Hakyll — I'm sure this isn't > what you had in mind when you announced your library! I'm just hoping > that we can figure out what our obligations are based upon the GPL, > since I'm not so sure myself anymore. > ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
