Re: Good news: Free Haskell to come out RSN!
Anthony Towns gives a good analysis:
> All the rumours /I've/ heard, says that the Artistic license isn't GPL
> compatible. This probably doesn't mean much, though.
>
> [...]
>
> The non-GPL bit is, I presume, section 4 of the Artistic license:
>
> ``You may distribute executables provided:
>
> a) They're not based on modified source
>
> or b) It's accompanied by source
>
> or c) You change the names of the binaries
>
> or d) You contact the copyright holder and make other arrangements''
>
> (paraphrased)
>
> If it were GPLed, you'd be able to distribute executables, based on
> modified source, accompanying it with only an offer for the source,
> without changing the names of any of the executables, and without
> having to contact the author. But you can't, so it isn't. Or that's
> how it looks to me.
This sounds precise to me.
> The *simplest* solution, if the HUGS people are amenable to clarifying
> their license is to use a Perl-like license, ie:
>
> This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
> it under the terms of either:
>
> a) the GNU General Public License as published by the Free
> Software Foundation; either version 1, or (at your option) any
> later version, or
>
> b) the "Artistic License" which comes with Debian.
>
> I say `clarification', because linking with libreadline requires that the
> HUGS code be able to be redistributed and/or modified under the GPL. If
> they don't want to let people distribute it under the GPL, they (we)
> can't distribute binaries linked to GPLed libs.
I'll pass on this argument to the author...
> I'd personally suggest following Perl's lead though.
...this being a good argument.
John hasler writes:
> Anthony Towns writes:
> > If it were GPLed, you'd be able to distribute executables, based on
> > modified source, accompanying it with only an offer for the source,
> > without changing the names of any of the executables, and without having
> > to contact the author. But you can't, so it isn't. Or that's how it looks
> > to me.
>
> That's a good point. Perhaps they could use a modified Artistic, replacing
> "b) It's accompanied by source" with GPL compatible language?
I prefer something with a model ... "like Perl" is a good thing to say to
them.
> It isn't nitpicking. It is important to get these things right the first
> time, to avoid more KDE type messes.
Of course -- and the discussion here has been seriously constructive so my
fear of flames/arrogance (as does sometimes happen :) was woefully
unjustified. Thanks for that!
Gratefully,
Kristoffer [who will propose "like perl" to the HUGS crowd]
--
Kristoffer Høgsbro Rose, phd, prof.associé <http://www.ens-lyon.fr/~krisrose>
addr: LIP, Ecole Normale Supérieure de Lyon, 46 Allée d'Italie, F-69364 Lyon 7
phone: +33(0)4 7272 8642, fax +33(0)4 7272 8080 <Kristoffer.Rose@ENS-Lyon.FR>
pgp f-p: A4D3 5BD7 3EC5 7CA2 924E D21D 126B B8E0 <krisrose@{debian,tug}.org>
Reply to: