[Haskell-cafe] GPL answers from the SFLC (WAS: Re: ANN: hakyll-0.1)

[Andrey Sisoyev]

Probably, a considerable part of beginner-programmers (also in our
community), who are interested in GPL ideas, may want to use some similar
GPL clarification: about being "dependent work" is not equal to "derived
work".

I guess, an article in haskell-wiki (clarifying situation with GPL) would be
nice to have.

IMHO they shouldn't equalize terms "dependent" and "deriving" - that's just
silly. 

Reagards,
Andrey


Rafael Almeida wrote:
> 
> On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 2:59 PM, Job Vranish <job.vranish at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Linux license specifically single that case out of the license
> restrictions. From the COPYING file in linux's source:
> 
>        NOTE! This copyright does *not* cover user programs that use kernel
>      services by normal system calls - this is merely considered normal
> use
>      of the kernel, and does *not* fall under the heading of "derived
> work".
>      Also note that the GPL below is copyrighted by the Free Software
>      Foundation, but the instance of code that it refers to (the Linux
>      kernel) is copyrighted by me and others who actually wrote it.
> 
>      Also note that the only valid version of the GPL as far as the kernel
>      is concerned is _this_ particular version of the license (ie v2, not
>      v2.2 or v3.x or whatever), unless explicitly otherwise stated.
> _______________________________________________
> Haskell-Cafe mailing list
> Haskell-Cafe at haskell.org
> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
> 
> 

-- 
View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/GPL-answers-from-the-SFLC-%28WAS%3A-Re%3A-ANN%3A-hakyll-0.1%29-tp27783997p27803729.html
Sent from the Haskell - Haskell-Cafe mailing list archive at Nabble.com.