Ah, that's more than we'd been told.  If that is the case, then containers is in violation of the GPL (unless they got permission to copy that code, separately), and either must obtain such permission, be relicensed,  remove/replace that code.


On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 8:29 AM, Clark Gaebel <cgaebel@uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
It's not an algorithm. The source code of containers is derived from the source code of another library.

  - Clark


On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 11:27 AM, Vo Minh Thu <noteed@gmail.com> wrote:
I'm not sure what your point is.

Re-implementing an algorithm is not a copyright infringement (nor is a
propagation of the original work). Algorithms are not covered by
copyright.

2012/12/12 Clark Gaebel <cgaebel@uwaterloo.ca>:
> I think this is a potential problem, but, obviously, IANAL. [1]
>
> According to the GPL:
>
> To “propagate” a work means to do anything with it that, without permission,
> would make you directly or secondarily liable for infringement under
> applicable copyright law, except executing it on a computer or modifying a
> private copy. Propagation includes copying, distribution (with or without
> modification), making available to the public, and in some countries other
> activities as well.
>
> and
>
> You may make, run and propagate covered works that you do not convey,
> without conditions so long as your license otherwise remains in force.
>
> and of course
>
> You may not propagate or modify a covered work except as expressly provided
> under this License. Any attempt otherwise to propagate or modify it is void,
> and will automatically terminate your rights under this License (including
> any patent licenses granted under the third paragraph of section 11).
>
>
> I believe that this counts as "propagation" of the original work, since it
> would be considered "infringement under applicable copyright law". Now, the
> wording in the GPL is a bit confusing on this point. I'm not sure if
> propagation requires that the BSD3 that containers is licensed under must
> remain in force, or the GPL on which the which is derived must remain in
> force. Does anyone else have better luck interpreting this?
>
>   - Clark
>
> [1] Aside: Can we stop saying IANAL? Let's just all assume that, until
> proven otherwise, no one here is a lawyer.
> [2] Required Reading: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 11:00 AM, David Thomas <davidleothomas@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> Right. If either of the following hold, you should be able to carry on as
>> you were (but double check with your lawyer):
>>
>> 1) The algorithm is borrowed but the code was not copied.  In this case,
>> copyright doesn't cover it, and the GPL is inapplicable.  (Patents could
>> conceivably be an issue, but no more so than if it was BSD code).
>>
>> 2) If you are not going to be distributing the code - either it is used
>> for internal tools or in the backend of a networked service (which the GPL
>> does not treat as distribution, as distinct from the AGPL).
>>
>> If a sizable chunk of actual code was copied, then the containers package
>> would have to be GPL, and if you are using the library and distribute
>> programs built with it then those programs must be GPL as well.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 7:47 AM, Vo Minh Thu <noteed@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> 2012/12/12 Dmitry Kulagin <dmitry.kulagin@gmail.com>:
>>> > Hi Cafe,
>>> >
>>> > I am faced with unpleasant problem. The lawyer of my company checked
>>> > sources
>>> > of containers package and found out that it refers to some GPL-library.
>>> >
>>> > Here is quote:
>>> > "The algorithm is derived from Jorg Arndt's FXT library"
>>> > in file Data/IntMap/Base.hs
>>> >
>>> > The problem is that FXT library is GPL and thus containers package can
>>> > not
>>> > be considered as BSD3. And it means that it can not be used in my case
>>> > (closed source software).
>>> >
>>> > Is this logic actually correct and containers should be considered as
>>> > GPL?
>>> >
>>> > The package is widely used by other packages and the only way I see
>>> > right
>>> > now is to fix sources to reimplement this functionality, which is not
>>> > good
>>> > option.
>>>
>>> GPL covers code, not algorithms.
>>>
>>> Beside, you can use GPL in closed-source code. GPL forces you to make
>>> the source available when you distribute the software, but if you
>>> don't distribute the software, there is nothing wrong to use GPL and
>>> not make your code available.
>>>
>>> HTH, IANAL,
>>> Thu
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Haskell-Cafe mailing list
>>> Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
>>> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Haskell-Cafe mailing list
>> Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
>> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
>>