On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 4:46 PM, Tom Tobin <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:korpios@korpios.com">korpios@korpios.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="im">On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 3:30 PM, Ben Franksen <<a href="mailto:ben.franksen@online.de">ben.franksen@online.de</a>> wrote:<br>
> Ketil Malde wrote:<br>
>> Your contributions could still be licensed under a different license<br>
>> (e.g. BSD), as long as the licensing doesn't prevent somebody else to<br>
>> pick it up and relicense it under GPL.<br>
>><br>
>> At least, that's how I understand things.<br>
><br>
> Right. So hakyll is absolutely fine with a BSD3 license, AFAICS.<br>
<br>
</div>Seriously, no, this is *totally* wrong reading of the GPL, probably<br>
fostered by a misunderstanding of the term "GPL-compatible license".<br>
GPL-compatible means the compatibly-licensed work can be incorporated<br>
into the GPL'd work (the whole of which is GPL'd), *not the other way<br>
around*. If you are forming a derivative work based on the GPL'd<br>
work, and thus you have to release that derivative work under the GPL.<br></blockquote><div><br>The crux here is that the source code of hakyll, released on hackage, is not a derivative of Pandoc (it contains, as far as I understand it, no Pandoc source code). A compiled executable *is* a derivative of Pandoc, so anyone who *distributes* a compiled executable would need to make *all* the source available under the GPL (including the hakyll source). Since the hakyll package is released under BSD3, this would be allowed (AIUI, IANAL).<br>
</div></div>