Thinking about what's missing in our library coverage

[Axel Simon]

On Aug 5, 2009, at 10:16, Malcolm Wallace wrote:

> On 4 Aug 2009, at 23:05, Don Stewart wrote:
>>
>> I would appreciate input from the HaXml and HDBC authors (our most
>> popular LGPL-licensed Haskell libraries) about what they feel the
>> licensing issues/constraints should be for the Haskell Platform.
>
> Licensing clarity is important for users I think.  But equally some  
> users may desire to use LGPL libraries too.  Hence my suggestion  
> that there be a separate platform of free/LGPL code (and GPL  
> tools), which can depend on the proprietary-friendly BSD-licensed  
> platform, but not the other way round.
>
>> I've not yet seen anyone publish something on how to satisfy LGPL
>> for Haskell libraries.
>
> The static-linking exception is the commonest means of working  
> around ghc's technical limitations here.  The exception is part of  
> wxHaskell's license (but not Gtk2hs's), and HaXml (+polyparse on  
> which it depends) has the exception too.

I don't think it would be much of a problem to weaken the license of  
Gtk2Hs to a BSD license. The underlying Gtk+ C library is, of course,  
LGPL but the C library can be linked in dynamically.

Axel.