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
On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 18:05, Stephen Tetley stephen.tet...@gmail.com 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
On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 12:53 AM, Kevin Jardine kevinjard...@yahoo.com 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
2010/3/5 Magnus Therning mag...@therning.org:
On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 18:05, Stephen Tetley stephen.tet...@gmail.com 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
On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 08:55, minh thu not...@gmail.com wrote:
2010/3/5 Magnus Therning mag...@therning.org:
On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 18:05, Stephen Tetley stephen.tet...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi Tom
Hmm, its seems I'm due to eat my hat...
To me though, the judgement makes that insistence that
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
On 5 March 2010 09:38, Stephen Tetley stephen.tet...@gmail.com 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
On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 09:38, Stephen Tetley stephen.tet...@gmail.com 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,
On 5 March 2010 09:53, Magnus Therning mag...@therning.org 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
On 5 March 2010 09:53, Magnus Therning mag...@therning.org 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
On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 2:19 AM, Stephen Tetley stephen.tet...@gmail.comwrote:
On 5 March 2010 09:53, Magnus Therning mag...@therning.org 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
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
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
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
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
On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 2:59 PM, Job Vranish job.vran...@gmail.com 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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 korp...@korpios.com wrote:
After politely pestering them again, I finally heard back from the
Software Freedom Law Center
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
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
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
26 matches
Mail list logo
