Ivan Lazar Miljenovic
For example, see the license for cpphs [1]; on Hackage it's listed as "LGPL" whereas the library is LGPL and the program is GPL.
Output from GPL programs is licensed under whatever license its input is licensed under (that is, the GPL doesn't say anything and forbids additional usage restrictions), I think the most prominent example is gcc, which you may use to develop closed-source programs. It's common to see programs under GPL and standard library code that is included by default under less restrictive licenses: If GHC was GPL, chances would be high that the RTS, itself, would still be licensed under BSD or similar. Doing otherwise just invites either forks or a community that is completely lacking any commercial members, both of which are usually not intended, at all. ...but that doesn't answer why cpphs is GPL/LGPL (as it does not inject any standard library code into its output[1]). I think it's the usual reason: The author generally wants GPL, but doesn't mind if anyone develops another program that does something the library part can be used for. [1] At least in Germany, there's no way in hell you could claim copyright on injected {-# LINE #-} pragmas ("Schaffungshoehe"). I will pity you if that's possible under your legislation -- (c) this sig last receiving data processing entity. Inspect headers for copyright history. All rights reserved. Copying, hiring, renting, performance and/or quoting of this signature prohibited.