<div dir="ltr">That doesn't mean those people don't exist. Maybe they do but are too afraid to speak up (due to corporate policy or whatever).</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 10:41 PM, Malcolm Wallace <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:malcolm.wallace@me.com" target="_blank">malcolm.wallace@me.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">I also note that in this discussion, so far not a single person has said that the cpphs licence would actually be a problem for them.<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
Malcolm<br>
<div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br>
On 7 May 2015, at 20:54, Herbert Valerio Riedel wrote:<br>
<br>
> On 2015-05-06 at 13:38:16 +0200, Jan Stolarek wrote:<br>
><br>
> [...]<br>
><br>
>> Regarding licensing issues: perhaps we should simply ask Malcolm<br>
>> Wallace if he would consider changing the license for the sake of GHC?<br>
>> Or perhaps he could grant a custom-tailored license to the GHC<br>
>> project? After all, the project page [1] says: " If that's a problem<br>
>> for you, contact me to make other arrangements."<br>
><br>
> Fyi, Neil talked to him[1]:<br>
><br>
> | I talked to Malcolm. His contention is that it doesn't actually change<br>
> | the license of the ghc package. As such, it's just a single extra<br>
> | license to add to a directory full of licenses, which is no big deal.<br>
><br>
><br>
> [1]: <a href="http://www.reddit.com/r/haskell/comments/351pur/rfc_native_xcpp_for_ghc_proposal/cr1e5n3" target="_blank">http://www.reddit.com/r/haskell/comments/351pur/rfc_native_xcpp_for_ghc_proposal/cr1e5n3</a><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Haskell-Cafe mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org">Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org</a><br>
<a href="http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe" target="_blank">http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>