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

[malcolm.wallace]

Yes, this is what I am asking.  Is the LGPL so dangerous to your business, that you have taken the steps necessary to build a special GHC using integer-simple instead of integer-gmp?  Or are the lawyers happy simply for the option to be available, but unexercised?  (If the latter, then I could suggest that ghc using cpphs by default, but allowing the option of a different preprocessor, might suffice?)
Regards,
    Malcolm

On 19 May, 2015,at 02:51 PM, Niklas Larsson <metaniklas at gmail.com> wrote:

Hi!

GMP is optional, anyone who cares about the license can build with integer-simple.

Regards,
Niklas
Från: malcolm.wallace
Skickat: ‎2015-‎05-‎19 13:11
Till: Lars Kuhtz
Kopia: ghc-devs at haskell.org
Ämne: Re: [Haskell-cafe] RFC: "Native -XCPP" Proposal

How does your company deal with the Integer type, whose standard implementation in ghc is via the LGPL'd Gnu multi-precision routines?
Regards,
    Malcolm

On 18 May, 2015,at 09:19 PM, 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/deb0e4c8/attachment-0001.html>