[Haskell-cafe] Re: ANN: hakyll-0.1
robgreayer at gmail.com
Tue Dec 8 17:13:35 EST 2009
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 4:46 PM, Tom Tobin <korpios at korpios.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 3:30 PM, Ben Franksen <ben.franksen at online.de>
> > Ketil Malde wrote:
> >> Your contributions could still be licensed under a different license
> >> (e.g. BSD), as long as the licensing doesn't prevent somebody else to
> >> pick it up and relicense it under GPL.
> >> At least, that's how I understand things.
> > Right. So hakyll is absolutely fine with a BSD3 license, AFAICS.
> Seriously, no, this is *totally* wrong reading of the GPL, probably
> fostered by a misunderstanding of the term "GPL-compatible license".
> GPL-compatible means the compatibly-licensed work can be incorporated
> into the GPL'd work (the whole of which is GPL'd), *not the other way
> around*. If you are forming a derivative work based on the GPL'd
> work, and thus you have to release that derivative work under the GPL.
The crux here is that the source code of hakyll, released on hackage, is not
a derivative of Pandoc (it contains, as far as I understand it, no Pandoc
source code). A compiled executable *is* a derivative of Pandoc, so anyone
who *distributes* a compiled executable would need to make *all* the source
available under the GPL (including the hakyll source). Since the hakyll
package is released under BSD3, this would be allowed (AIUI, IANAL).
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Haskell-Cafe