[Haskell-cafe] Re: ANN: hakyll-0.1
ketil at malde.org
Wed Dec 9 05:59:56 EST 2009
Tom Tobin <korpios at korpios.com> writes:
> In temporary lieu of posing questions explicitly to the SFLC, I dug
> up a copy of _Intellectual Property and Open Source_ by Foobar (and
> published by O'Reilly), and found this (from an entire chapter —
> Chapter 12 — about the GPL):
> "Nevertheless, there is a persistent issue that won’t go away—whether
> linking programs together creates a derivative work. If linking
> creates a derivative work, the GPL applies to the linked program;
> otherwise, the GPL doesn’t apply."
According to this, application Z linking GPL library X and BSD library Y
*may* be required to be GPL-redistributable. The is no such requirement
on the source code of Y.
> If it turns out that Hakyll *is* okay to be BSD3 licensed so
> long as neither any binary nor the GPL'd work's source is distributed
> under non-GPL terms, well ... I'll say that the meaning of "BSD
> licensed" will have become much less reliable, since it means you
> actually have to trace the genealogy of the libraries you use *all*
> the way back in order to understand the situation for certain.
How so? To me it's the exact converse: if the author of Hakyll may
*not* distribute his work under the BSD license, just because it is
intended to be linked with some GPL code, this complicates issues
I don't think the FAQs you cited is all that confusing: copyright covers
the expression of an idea - i.e. actual source code. If my source code
doesn't contain bits of somebody elses source code, I can license it as
All my programs are "intended" to be linked with Linux's libc, and
"intended" to call into to Linux kernel. That this should imply a
particular licensing seems very counterintuitive, would be impossible to
police, and would have a tremendous effect on the software ecosystem.
If I haven't seen further, it is by standing in the footprints of giants
More information about the Haskell-Cafe