On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 3:30 PM, Ben Franksen <ben.franksen@online.de> wrote:
> Ketil Malde wrote:
>> Your contributions could still be licensed under a different license
>> (e.g. BSD), as long as the licensing doesn't prevent somebody else to
>> pick it up and relicense it under GPL.
>>
>> At least, that's how I understand things.
>
> Right. So hakyll is absolutely fine with a BSD3 license, AFAICS.

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*. If you are forming a derivative work based on the GPL'd
work, and thus you have to release that derivative work under the GPL.

The crux here is that the source code of hakyll, released on hackage, is not a derivative of Pandoc (it contains, as far as I understand it, no Pandoc source code). A compiled executable *is* a derivative of Pandoc, so anyone who *distributes* a compiled executable would need to make *all* the source available under the GPL (including the hakyll source). Since the hakyll package is released under BSD3, this would be allowed (AIUI, IANAL).