[Haskell-cafe] GPL License of H-Matrix and prelude numeric

[Maciej Piechotka]

On Thu, 2011-01-27 at 00:45 -0500, wren ng thornton wrote:
> On 1/26/11 5:51 AM, Maciej Piechotka wrote:
> > Some projects (like Linux) remove this clause and I'm not sure how many
> > projects are marked on hackage as GPL2 being GPL2-only.
> 
> Technically GPLx and GPLy are incompatible for all x and y such that x 
> /= y.The problem is that *technically* the phrasing of the viral clause 
> prohibits dual licensing, despite the obvious intention.

Could you elaborate? I cannot see any problem why author, having all
rights, cannot publish code under GPL-2 and MPL. Sure GPL-2 allows
someone to fork it into single-licence fork.

> This is why the 
> recommended verbiage states that that the work is "licensed under GPLx 
> or any later version". That disjunction isn't saying that you're 
> allowing for revisions of refinements to the license, it's a disjunction 
> of licenses so that others can choose the license that's compatible with 
> their needs. Which is also why, if the "or any later version" part is 
> omitted then the GPLx code can't be combined with GPLy (for y > x).
> 
> Aka, "GPL2-only" stuff cannot depend on "GPL3(or later)" stuff. The only 
> time this really matters is when dealing with the linux kernel (and few 
> other projects) since they have specific objections to the GPL3 and 
> intentionally sought to disallow licensing of kernel code under it.
> 

Hmm. By GPL I understend FSF version which allows relicensing.

I'm not sure about the interpretation (and IANAL) but I'm not entirely
sure if GPLx+ and GPLx-only are compatible at all.

Regards
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell-cafe/attachments/20110127/f53fa37a/attachment.pgp>