[Haskell-cafe] Re: Re: ANN: hakyll-0.1

[Tom Tobin]

On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 4:56 PM, Ben Franksen <ben.franksen at online.de> wrote:
>> On Tue, 8 Dec 2009, Tom Tobin wrote:
>>> 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*.
>
> No. See http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhatIsCompatible
>
> Quote:
>
> "What does it mean to say that two licenses are compatible?
>
> In order to combine two programs (or substantial parts of them) into a
> larger work, you need to have permission to use both programs in this way.
> If the two programs' licenses permit this, they are compatible. If there is
> no way to satisfy both licenses at once, they are incompatible.[...]"

That's what compatibility means in general for any set of licenses, yes.


> and http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhatDoesCompatMean
>
> "What does it mean to say a license is compatible with the GPL?
>
> It means that the other license and the GNU GPL are compatible; you can
> combine code released under the other license with code released under the
> GNU GPL in one larger program."

And, yes — this is what I said.  ^_^

> Ganesh Sittampalam wrote:
>> One
>> might argue that the hakyll itself must be a derivative work as it builds
>> on pandoc,
>
> If this were so, then /all/ of Linux (including all the thousands of
> programs found on linux distributions) would have to be licensed under GPL,
> which is clearly not the case.

No, it doesn't work that way; merely running a program under GPL'd
Linux isn't the same thing.