<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;">
On Mon, 2011-02-07 at 14:42 +0000, Malcolm Wallace wrote:<br>
> > It seems then that a package should be the least restrictive<br>
> > combination of all the licenses in all the contained modules.<br>
><br>
> Omit the words "least restrictive" and I think you are correct.<br></blockquote><div><br>OK.<br> <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
><br>
> To combine licences, just aggregate them. There is no lattice of<br>
> subsumption; no "more" or "less" restrictive ordering. It's simple:<br>
> you must obey all of them. Some aggregations introduce a<br>
> contradiction of terms, so you cannot legally aggregate those modules<br>
> without breaking some term. But if the terms of the aggregated<br>
> licences are compatible rather than contradictory, then all is good.<br>
<br>
Right, so the effect of per-file/mixed licenses could be achieved by<br>
letting packages specify a list of licenses:<br>
<br>
license: Foo, Bar<br></blockquote><div><br>Could this be computed automatically from the source files by Cabal?<br> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<br>
Meaning you may copy/distribute provided you comply with all these<br>
licenses.<br>
<br>
Note that this does not cover dual licensing, e.g. Foo or Bar at<br>
distributor's choice.<br>
<br>
Duncan<br>
</blockquote></div><br>Looking specifically at hmatrix, there are three kinds of modules<br><br> i) bindings to GSL GPL<br> ii) bindings to LAPACK BSD<br> iii) pure Haskell hmatrix author's choice<br>
<br>1) Am I correct in thinking that even the bindings modules (the Haskell parts, not the C files) can be under any licence, FOO, chosen by the author, but the binary _linked_ to, say, GSL has to comply with FOO and GPL?<br>
<br>2) If someone uses hmatrix but no GSL functions (hence there are no GSL functions in the linked binary) can they get away with not complying with the GSL requirement?<br><br>Cheers,<br><br>Vivian<br>