On Thu, 2010-03-04 at 11:34 -0600, Tom Tobin wrote: > After politely pestering them again, I finally heard back from the > Software Freedom Law Center regarding our GPL questions (quoted > below). > > I exchanged several emails to clarify the particular issues; in short, > the answers are "No", "No", "N/A", and "N/A". The SFLC holds that a > library that depends on a GPL'd library must in turn be GPL'd, even if > the library is only distributed as source and not in binary form. > They offered to draft some sort of explicit response if we'd find it > useful. > > Maybe it would be useful if Cabal had some sort of licensing check > command that could be run on a .cabal file, and warn an author if any > libraries it depends on (directly or indirectly) are GPL'd but the > .cabal itself does not have the license set to GPL
AFAIR AGPL can be linked with GPL (but not vice-versa) so Y can be on AGPL (well - is AGPL a GPL in answer). Regards
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list [email protected] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
