Thinking about what's missing in our library coverage

[Magnus Therning]

On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 8:22 AM, Malcolm
Wallace<malcolm.wallace at cs.york.ac.uk> wrote:
>> As an aside: are you aware of the problems using LGPL in the context of
>> GHC statically linking libraries by default (in that they degenerate to
>> GPL, or require significant extra workaround).
>
> Given that GHC has statically linked *all* the binaries it produces against
> an LGPL library for at least the last 15 years, I think it is a little bit
> late for everyone else to start worrying about it!

Which library is that?

> I am aware of the issue (and indeed use the static linking exception in all
> of my own LGPL-released code) but in any case, dynamic linking (by default)
> will soon be coming to an optimising compiler near you (or so I hear from
> the people who are paying for it.)

AFAIU it's important to make the distinction between linking against a
C library and a Haskell library.  IIRC the former can be modified and
replaced without recompiling the whole Haskell program, while the
latter can't.

/M

-- 
Magnus Therning                        (OpenPGP: 0xAB4DFBA4)
magnus＠therning．org          Jabber: magnus＠therning．org
http://therning.org/magnus         identi.ca|twitter: magthe