[email protected]
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [Haskell-cafe] Re: ANN: hakyll-0.1

Subject: Re: [Haskell-cafe] Re: ANN: hakyll-0.1
From: Tom Tobin
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 22:21:19 -0600
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 6:31 PM, Tom Tobin <[email protected]> wrote:
> Question 2 can be "If the answer to 1 is no, is there *any*
> circumstance under which the author of Y can distribute the source of
> Y under a non-GPL license?"

I'd like to get these questions out to the SFLC so we can satisfy our
curiosity; at the moment, here's what I'd be asking:

Background: X is a library distributed under the terms of the GPL. Y
is another library which calls external functions in the API of X, and
requires X to compile.  X and Y have different authors.

1) Can the author of Y legally distribute the *source* of Y under a
non-GPL license, such as the 3-clause BSD license or the MIT license?

2) If the answer to 1 is "no", is there *any* circumstance under which
the author of Y can distribute the source of Y under a non-GPL
license?

3) If the answer to 1 is "yes", what specifically would trigger the
redistribution of a work in this scenario under the GPL?  Is it the
distribution of X+Y *together* (whether in source or binary form)?

4) If the answer to 1 is "yes", does this mean that a "BSD-licensed"
library does not necessarily mean that closed-source software can be
distributed which is based upon such a library (if it so happens that
the library in turn depends on a copylefted library)?

By the way, apologies to the author of Hakyll â I'm sure this isn't
what you had in mind when you announced your library!  I'm just hoping
that we can figure out what our obligations are based upon the GPL,
since I'm not so sure myself anymore.
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe

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