[Haskell-cafe] RFC: "Native -XCPP" Proposal

Lars Kuhtz haskell at kuhtz.eu
Mon May 18 20:18:55 UTC 2015

I work for PivotCloud. We use Haskell/GHC in our production system on 
the server side and on the client side.

My experience is that any license that contains the string "GPL" can 
cause problems in an corporate context, no matter if it actually is a 
legal issue or not.

Folks who are responsible for making decisions about legal implications 
of the usage of third party software don't always have experience with 
open source software. Also they are often not familiar with the 
technical details of "derived work", different types of linking, or the 
subtleties of distinguishing between build-, link-, and run-time 
dependencies in modern software engineering pipelines. So, any 
mentioning of "LGPL" (or similar) potentially causes overhead in the 


On 5/7/15 11:10 PM, Malcolm Wallace wrote:
> Exactly.  My post was an attempt to elicit response from anyone to whom it matters.  There is no point in worrying about hypothetical licensing problems - let's hear about the real ones.
> Regards,
>      Malcolm
> On 7 May 2015, at 22:15, Tomas Carnecky wrote:
>> 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).
>> On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 10:41 PM, Malcolm Wallace <malcolm.wallace at me.com> wrote:
>> 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.
>> Regards,
>>      Malcolm
>> On 7 May 2015, at 20:54, Herbert Valerio Riedel wrote:
>>> On 2015-05-06 at 13:38:16 +0200, Jan Stolarek wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>> Regarding licensing issues: perhaps we should simply ask Malcolm
>>>> Wallace if he would consider changing the license for the sake of GHC?
>>>> Or perhaps he could grant a custom-tailored license to the GHC
>>>> project? After all, the project page [1] says: " If that's a problem
>>>> for you, contact me to make other arrangements."
>>> Fyi, Neil talked to him[1]:
>>> | I talked to Malcolm. His contention is that it doesn't actually change
>>> | the license of the ghc package. As such, it's just a single extra
>>> | license to add to a directory full of licenses, which is no big deal.
>>> [1]: http://www.reddit.com/r/haskell/comments/351pur/rfc_native_xcpp_for_ghc_proposal/cr1e5n3
>> _______________________________________________
>> Haskell-Cafe mailing list
>> Haskell-Cafe at haskell.org
>> http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
> _______________________________________________
> ghc-devs mailing list
> ghc-devs at haskell.org
> http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs

More information about the ghc-devs mailing list