sigh -- to the list this time.<br><br><div class="gmail_quote"><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div class="im">On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 9:16 AM, Tom Tobin <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:korpios@korpios.com" target="_blank">korpios@korpios.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div>On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 4:59 AM, Ketil Malde <<a href="mailto:ketil@malde.org" target="_blank">ketil@malde.org</a>> wrote:<br>
> Tom Tobin <<a href="mailto:korpios@korpios.com" target="_blank">korpios@korpios.com</a>> writes:<br>
</div><div>>> If it turns out that Hakyll *is* okay to be BSD3 licensed so<br>
>> long as neither any binary nor the GPL'd work's source is distributed<br>
>> under non-GPL terms, well ... I'll say that the meaning of "BSD<br>
>> licensed" will have become much less reliable, since it means you<br>
>> actually have to trace the genealogy of the libraries you use *all*<br>
>> the way back in order to understand the situation for certain.<br>
><br>
> How so? To me it's the exact converse: if the author of Hakyll may<br>
> *not* distribute his work under the BSD license, just because it is<br>
> intended to be linked with some GPL code, this complicates issues<br>
> tremendously.<br>
<br>
</div>For instance, it would mean that businesses which may be writing<br>
proprietary software can't assume they can freely use a liberally<br>
licensed (e.g., BSD3) library — which would *completely* go against<br>
the prevailing understanding of liberally licensed software. Tainting<br>
your software with a GPL dependency without realizing it is a<br>
terrifying prospect (and certainly one of the questions I'd now like<br>
to pose to the SFLC).<br></blockquote></div><div></div></div><div> <br><div class="gmail_quote"><div>I
don't think I follow your reasoning here: certainly, a business can
use, freely, the Hakyll library (meaning that they can redistribute, in
binary form, their executable built with it, without distributing the
Hakyll source or their own source). They cannot freely use the Pandoc
library in the same way, because it is GPL. Since the Hakyll library
depends on the Pandoc library, they will of course have some trouble
with *building* an executable that contains Hakyll but not Pandoc.
Both there's no hidden dependency, no 'tainting' of Hakyll involved.
There is a danger, of course, that when installing Hakyll (via cabal)
the user won't realize they've also installed Pandoc, even though the
dependency is clearly specified. The lesson here is that someone
packaging an executable for distribution has to be aware of everything
they are building into it. It's possible to make a mistake here, if
one is not careful. But it doesn't require much diligence to get it
right (if you use cabal to build your executable, you have to specify
your dependencies. Check the licensing terms of each, and comply). <br>
</div></div>
<br>
</div></div>