Re: [Haskell-cafe] GPL answers from the SFLC (WAS: Re: ANN: hakyll-0.1)

Probably, a considerable part of beginner-programmers (also in our community), who are interested in GPL ideas, may want to use some similar GPL clarification: about being "dependent work" is not equal to "derived work". I guess, an article in haskell-wiki (clarifying situation with GPL) would be nice to have. IMHO they shouldn't equalize terms "dependent" and "deriving" - that's just silly. Reagards, Andrey Rafael Almeida wrote:

On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 2:59 PM, Job Vranish wrote:

Linux license specifically single that case out of the license restrictions. From the COPYING file in linux's source:

NOTE! This copyright does *not* cover user programs that use kernel services by normal system calls - this is merely considered normal use of the kernel, and does *not* fall under the heading of "derived work". Also note that the GPL below is copyrighted by the Free Software Foundation, but the instance of code that it refers to (the Linux kernel) is copyrighted by me and others who actually wrote it.

Also note that the only valid version of the GPL as far as the kernel is concerned is _this_ particular version of the license (ie v2, not v2.2 or v3.x or whatever), unless explicitly otherwise stated. _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe

-- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/GPL-answers-from-the-SFLC-%28WAS%3A-Re%3A-ANN%3A-hakyl... Sent from the Haskell - Haskell-Cafe mailing list archive at Nabble.com.