Probably, a considerable part of beginner-programmers (also in our community), who are interested in GPL ideas, may want to use some similar GPL clarification: about being "dependent work" is not equal to "derived work".
I guess, an article in haskell-wiki (clarifying situation with GPL) would be nice to have. IMHO they shouldn't equalize terms "dependent" and "deriving" - that's just silly. Reagards, Andrey Rafael Almeida wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 2:59 PM, Job Vranish <[email protected]> wrote: > > Linux license specifically single that case out of the license > restrictions. From the COPYING file in linux's source: > > NOTE! This copyright does *not* cover user programs that use kernel > services by normal system calls - this is merely considered normal > use > of the kernel, and does *not* fall under the heading of "derived > work". > Also note that the GPL below is copyrighted by the Free Software > Foundation, but the instance of code that it refers to (the Linux > kernel) is copyrighted by me and others who actually wrote it. > > Also note that the only valid version of the GPL as far as the kernel > is concerned is _this_ particular version of the license (ie v2, not > v2.2 or v3.x or whatever), unless explicitly otherwise stated. > _______________________________________________ > Haskell-Cafe mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe > > -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/GPL-answers-from-the-SFLC-%28WAS%3A-Re%3A-ANN%3A-hakyll-0.1%29-tp27783997p27803729.html Sent from the Haskell - Haskell-Cafe mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list [email protected] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
