RFC: "Native -XCPP" Proposal
carter.schonwald at gmail.com
Tue May 19 05:31:33 UTC 2015
I imagine your ghc build uses gcc to invoke the system assembler and linker
on your Linux servers, :-) and that's gplv3!
On Monday, May 18, 2015, Lars Kuhtz <haskell at kuhtz.eu> wrote:
> 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 adaption.
> 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.
>> 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>
>>> 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.
>>> 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  says: " If that's a problem
>>>>> for you, contact me to make other arrangements."
>>>> Fyi, Neil talked to him:
>>>> | 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.
>>> Haskell-Cafe mailing list
>>> Haskell-Cafe at haskell.org
>> ghc-devs mailing list
>> ghc-devs at haskell.org
> ghc-devs mailing list
> ghc-devs at haskell.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the ghc-devs