RFC: "Native -XCPP" Proposal

Bardur Arantsson spam at scientician.net
Tue May 19 15:16:45 UTC 2015

On 05/19/2015 11:04 AM, Boespflug, Mathieu wrote:
> On 19 May 2015 at 08:26, Bardur Arantsson <spam at scientician.net> wrote:
>> On 05/19/2015 07:31 AM, Carter Schonwald wrote:
>>> I imagine your ghc build uses gcc to invoke the system assembler and
>> linker
>>> on your Linux servers, :-) and that's gplv3!
>> That is of no consequence licensing-wise since those are
>>    a) separate programs/executables, thus "derived work" doesn't enter
>>       into it at any level, except...
>>    b) if the output contains bits of of the programs themselves, but
>>       e.g. gcc (and one assumes the linker, etc.) have specific
>>       licensing exemptions for the output.
>> (And this *is* something that you can quickly explain to the lawyerly
>> types.)
> Both conditions likewise hold true for
> cpphs-as-an-external-process-bundled-with-GHC. So any particular remaining
> concern there?

Not from me, certainly. I was just trying to point out that the example
given (Linux, gcc, ...) was invalid.

I would be more worried about e.g. Linux distributions *if* cpphs were
under some weird license, but since it's LGPL that shouldn't prompt any
issues. (We're talking "mere aggregation" in the terms used in the GPL.)

As always, IANAL and in particular I am not *your* or anybody else's
lawyer :).


More information about the ghc-devs mailing list