[Haskell-cafe] Re: Why Not Haskell? (sidenote on licensing)

Stefan Monnier monnier at iro.umontreal.ca
Mon Aug 7 13:21:43 EDT 2006

> Sorry, I didn't mean to offend anybody, or be misleading.  I like GPL,
> but I also like the disease metaphor (although is not as much being
> sneezed at as having sex with somebody :-).

Then you should think twice before using such metaphors: you end up
propagating hate for something which you like.

> And it's really not as easy to control as you suggest: If you ever
> take in a single patch under the GPL,

Any patch or outside piece of code you choose to include in your code should
be checked to see if its licence allows you to use it like you intend.
That's true for any license, not just for the GPL.  And don't forget: the
default "license" is no licence at all (i.e. basically just what the
copyright's "fair use" says, which seems to be asymptotically moving towards
the empty set as time goes).

> or even implement a new feature in an obvious way that has been
> implemented by somebody else under the GPL, you are in trouble.

Doesn't sound credible.  You're free to write and sell a program whose
source code is exactly the same as Emacs's (or PowerPoint for that matter)
as long as you can show it was pure accident (or if you like a more classic
example <url:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Menard_(fictional_character)>)
AFAIK The problem you talk about only comes with patents and is unrelated
to copyright/licenses/GPL.


More information about the Haskell-Cafe mailing list