[email protected]
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [Haskell-cafe] short licensing question

Subject: Re: [Haskell-cafe] short licensing question
From: Sebastian Fischer
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 20:43:16 +0100
On Jan 11, 2010, at 2:08 PM, Don Stewart wrote:

Libraries don't link in other things as such -- the .cabal file is the only
thing that ties them together -- so you can use whatever license you
like.

On Jan 11, 2010, at 7:02 PM, Tom Tobin wrote:

I think in
your case you can license the library you're writing any way you'd
like, but distributing a statically linked binary might leave you with
additional obligations under the LGPL.
Thank you all for your comments. It seems consensus that it is no
problem to depend on LGPL libraries if no binary that links to LGPL'ed
code is distributed. I understand that this consensus is no definite
legal advice, though.
What reasons do people have to use a BSD license over a Public Domain
license, for example with the license text from: <http://www.lemur.com/pd-disclaimers.html
> ? Is the only difference that, with a BSD license, the copyright
notice must be maintained?
Sebastian

--
Underestimating the novelty of the future is a time-honored tradition.
(D.G.)



_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>