[Haskell-cafe] Re: GPL answers from the SFLC

[Achim Schneider]

Ivan Lazar Miljenovic <ivan.miljenovic at gmail.com> wrote:

> For example, see the license for cpphs [1]; on Hackage it's listed as
> "LGPL" whereas the library is LGPL and the program is GPL.
>
Output from GPL programs is licensed under whatever license its input
is licensed under (that is, the GPL doesn't say anything and forbids
additional usage restrictions), I think the most prominent example is
gcc, which you may use to develop closed-source programs.

It's common to see programs under GPL and standard library code that is
included by default under less restrictive licenses: If GHC was GPL,
chances would be high that the RTS, itself, would still be licensed
under BSD or similar. Doing otherwise just invites either forks or a
community that is completely lacking any commercial members, both of
which are usually not intended, at all.

...but that doesn't answer why cpphs is GPL/LGPL (as it does not
inject any standard library code into its output[1]). I think it's the
usual reason: The author generally wants GPL, but doesn't mind if anyone
develops another program that does something the library part can be
used for.

[1] At least in Germany, there's no way in hell you could claim
    copyright on injected {-# LINE #-} pragmas ("Schaffungshoehe"). I
    will pity you if that's possible under your legislation

-- 
(c) this sig last receiving data processing entity. Inspect headers
for copyright history. All rights reserved. Copying, hiring, renting,
performance and/or quoting of this signature prohibited.