RFC: "Native -XCPP" Proposal

[Carter Schonwald]

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.
>
> Regards,
> Lars
>
> 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
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> ghc-devs mailing list
> ghc-devs at haskell.org
> http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/ghc-devs/attachments/20150519/4c73477e/attachment.html>