* Peter Tanski: > Quite right; my mistake: under the OpenSSL license a developer cannot > mention features of the software in advertising materials, so the > license grant of the GPL-OpenSSL program to the developer is void. > The reason I mentioned "users" only was that in the particular > problem we have here GHC does not use any other GPL programs (I think > I am correct--readline is the unix version, not the GPL version, > correct?)
On most systems, readline is GPLed. There is a non-copyleft reimplementation somewhere, but I don't think it's widely used. > The advertising requirement in the OpenSSL license would certainly > constitute a "further restriction" under GPLv2 section 6; the > strange implication is that the "no further restriction" clause is > so broad It has to be very broad, otherwise developers could bypass the copyleft concept. > the same clause (verbatim) in section 10 of the LGPL means the GPL > license is incompatible with the terms of the LGPL! The LGPL permits relicensing of covered works under the GPL. Without that provision, it would indeed be incompatible with the GPL. _______________________________________________ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
