On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 09:38, Stephen Tetley <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Magnus > > The 'Why not LGPL' doesn't cover the particular argument here: > >> using the ordinary GPL for a library makes it available only for free >> programs. > > The particular concern we have here is quite specific, considering > (-->) to be a dependency, can Hackage libraries under BSD3 that depend > on libraries under GPL? > > [1] App --> libBSD3 --> libGPL > > > Any App built has to incorporate the GPL library - so the App has to > be GPL. -- No dispute --. > > Similar BSD3 is a GPL compatible library, so this dependency chain > would be legal: > > [2] App --> libGPL --> libBSD > > The argument is whether it is legal to distribute (read host on > Hackage) BSD3 libs that depend on GPL libs - formulation [1].
Now I'm even more confused. How is hosting on Hackage an issue in [1]? Both involved licenses are very liberal when it comes to distribution. The only issue I do see is that the author of libBSD3 is actually deluding her/him-self, since the use of libGPL means both libraries are in fact under GPL. I don't see this being anything that anyone involved with Hackage can be held responsible for, the responsibility must fall on the author of libBSD3. In this scenario I don't see Hackage as anything more than a conduit. /M -- Magnus Therning (OpenPGP: 0xAB4DFBA4) magnus＠therning．org Jabber: magnus＠therning．org http://therning.org/magnus identi.ca|twitter: magthe _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list [email protected] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
