[Haskell] License for haskell.org content

[Chris Kuklewicz]

I have appended the relevant conclusion

Ian Lynagh wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 08, 2006 at 09:31:16PM -0500, John Peterson wrote:
> 
>>I believe the scenario that the FDL addresses is that someone
>>(probably Paul Hudak!) "borrows" massive amounts of stuff from the wiki,
>>adds his own good stuff, and then publishes a nice book or something
>>without having to share his additional contribution.  Some people
>>would like to be sure that their contributions can't be exploited in
>>this manner.
> 
> 
> Why not use the GPL, then?
> 
> FWIW, the GFDL is considered non-free by Debian[1], so that would mean
> any documentation or anything derived from the wiki couldn't be packaged
> for Debian.
> 
> Apart from the issue of code itself on the wiki, that other people have
> already mentioned, presumably you'd also have licence fun if you try to
> take surrounding explanatory text to use as haddock docs etc.
> 
> 
> Thanks
> Ian
> 
> [1] http://people.debian.org/~srivasta/Position_Statement.xhtml
>     http://home.twcny.rr.com/nerode/neroden/fdl.html
> 


==============
Conclusion

It is not possible to borrow text from a GFDL'd manual and incorporate
it in any free software program whatsoever.  This is not a mere
license incompatibility.  It's not just that the GFDL is incompatible
with this or that free software license: it's that it is fundamentally
incompatible with any free software license whatsoever.  So if you
write a new program, and you have no commitments at all about what
license you want to use, saving only that it be a free license, you
cannot include GFDL'd text.

The GNU FDL, as it stands today, does not meet the Debian Free
Software Guidelines.  There are significant problems with the license,
as detailed above; and, as such, we cannot accept works licensed unde
the GNU FDL into our distribution.
==============

Thus defaulting the FDL for all wiki content, including code, is a very bad idea.

-- 
Chris