[Haskell-cafe][Cabal-devel] Cabal && license combinations

[Duncan Coutts]

On Wed, 2011-02-09 at 18:35 -0500, Dan Knapp wrote:
> I haven't heard anyone mention this yet, and it's a biggie, so I
> guess I'd better de-lurk and explain it.  The issue is this:  There is
> a legal distinction between static and dynamic linking, or at least
> some licenses (the GPL is the one I'm aware of) believe that there is.
>  In particular, they assert that you are legally creating a "derived
> work" if you statically link with their library, and that your
> library, even if it's just a thin bindings wrapper, must therefore
> comply by their license terms.  They make no such claim for dynamic
> linking.

I think you're in danger of adding confusion rather than removing it.
The LGPL provides some alternative terms for dynamic linking but you
still must comply with the license.

> Of course, Haskell on most platforms and default configurations
> links everything statically!  So I believe this means that you have to
> comply by the licenses of all your dependencies!

You always have to do that.

> Now, there's a difference between complying by those licenses and
> being under them yourself, but for example I believe this means that
> if we have a package named "hs-save-the-whales" that is under the GPL,
> and a front-end package "hs-redeem-them-for-valuable-cash-prizes"
> which makes use of the functionality in hs-save-the-whales, the
> front-end MUST be offered under the GPL, and, additionally, CANNOT be
> offered under BSD (I think).

No, that is wrong. There is no difference between GPL code depending on
BSD code and BSD code depending on GPL code. The direction of the
dependency is irrelevant. In both cases the end user/distributor must
comply with both licenses.

> I think it would be a very useful and valuable thing for Cabal to
> detect this situation and warn appropriately!  Contamination by
> undesired licenses is a serious flaw in the packaging of a package; it
> just happens to be a legal flaw rather than a technical one.  Indeed,
> I would argue that this is far more important than any hypothetical
> per-file licensing.

We are already working on a feature that will show the full set of
licenses that the end user must comply with (a patch has been submitted
and it's been through one round of review so far). In your example that
would mean you expect the set to be {BSD} but the tool will show you
that it is in fact {BSD, GPL}. You can then use that as your warning
that the set of licenses is not what you expected.

The tool will not claim that {BSD, GPL} is wrong, because it isn't! What
is wrong is expectations not matching reality, and hopefully that's what
the tool can help with.

Duncan