On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 4:56 PM, Ben Franksen
On Tue, 8 Dec 2009, Tom Tobin wrote:
Seriously, no, this is *totally* wrong reading of the GPL, probably fostered by a misunderstanding of the term "GPL-compatible license". GPL-compatible means the compatibly-licensed work can be incorporated into the GPL'd work (the whole of which is GPL'd), *not the other way around*.
No. See http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhatIsCompatible
Quote:
"What does it mean to say that two licenses are compatible?
In order to combine two programs (or substantial parts of them) into a larger work, you need to have permission to use both programs in this way. If the two programs' licenses permit this, they are compatible. If there is no way to satisfy both licenses at once, they are incompatible.[...]"
That's what compatibility means in general for any set of licenses, yes.
and http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhatDoesCompatMean
"What does it mean to say a license is compatible with the GPL?
It means that the other license and the GNU GPL are compatible; you can combine code released under the other license with code released under the GNU GPL in one larger program."
And, yes — this is what I said. ^_^
Ganesh Sittampalam wrote:
One might argue that the hakyll itself must be a derivative work as it builds on pandoc,
If this were so, then /all/ of Linux (including all the thousands of programs found on linux distributions) would have to be licensed under GPL, which is clearly not the case.
No, it doesn't work that way; merely running a program under GPL'd Linux isn't the same thing.