possible readline license problem with ghc and -package util
Wolfgang Thaller
wolfgang.thaller@gmx.net
Tue, 11 Jun 2002 21:49:12 +0200
--Apple-Mail-1-420595987
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=US-ASCII;
format=flowed
> I'm being provocative, I know. I'm not trying to insult though, just to
> encourage a creative discussion.
Me too. But I've never seen a flame war on any haskell list, so I trust
that no one will be insulted if we present our differing opinions in a
strong way. We'll just have to take this discussion elsewhere (where?)
in case it starts to generate too much noise on this list. This list
shouldn't become "glasgow-haskell-politics", after all.
--- cut here if you aren't interested in political rants ---
> :) The question here is, are you (plural) really trying to write Free
> Software
> or just giving something away now, which will be closed and hogged
> later?
They probably don't want to restrict people's freedom to create non-free
versions. At least that would be my motive.
My main problem with the GPL is that if my code is placed under GPL, it
is misused as a political tool to enforce a rather extreme vision - a
world _without_ proprietary software. While it is a "valid" viewpoint,
it's far too extreme for me - I _want_ to write proprietary software.
Let's suppose that Microsoft decides that it's time to integrate a
proprietary version of GHC into Visual Studio... and suppose that the
current main GHC developers will work on the non-free version. Is that a
problem? No. It would generate enough additional interest in Haskell to
keep up development on the free version.
Let's suppose on the other hand, that the main GHC developers decide to
release the next version of GHC and its libraries under GPL. That would
mean that it cannot be used to create proprietary software, or to create
software that doesn't include a political manifesto by RMS. I doubt that
there will be enough talented people available to develop a non-GPLed
free version of GHC in parallel. It would destroy any hope of widespread
use of Haskell in the "real world".
> Anybody writing truly Free Software
> should have no problem with it, while any non-free efforts are left out.
I feel that Truly Free Software doesn't leave anyone out. I feel that
Truly Free Software doesn't force anyone to distribute political
manifestoes that he/she doesn't necessarily agree with. I feel that
Truly Free Software doesn't impose silly restrictions on static vs
dynamic linking (as the LGPL does). I believe that Truly Free Software
shouldn't have a license that could be classified as a (admittedly
relatively benign) computer virus.
I have a problem with the GPL because, while I'm strongly in favor of
Free Software, I have no problem with proprietary software. If my code
is released under GPL, It becomes a political tool.
> "GHC doesn't want to be GPL... why? - Would they close it once they
> smell
> money in it?".
Well, they can't really close it -- the license is a value, not an
IORef :-). They can make a closed copy of it. While it would be a pity
if those talented people who are currently employed at Microsoft
Research would stop contributing code to the free version, it would
concern me less than if GHC was put under GPL. And everyone who has seen
the GPLed version would then be forbidden to work on a proprietary
version of the old non-GPLed source base, because the FSF could sue him
for copyright infringement if RMS feels that there is an opportunity to
take out a non-free competitor to a free software product. Not my idea
of freedom.
The current license leaves the most freedom to everyone. That includes
things that some of us would not like to happen - but why give up
freedom just because some "bad guys" might come along and do something
that some (not all) "good guys" don't like?
> I have that fear, and I'd be really happy if someone could
> relieve me of it.
And while you're at it, you could relieve me of my fear that the
official GHC distribution could switch to a GNU license...
> I'll admit here (for the sake of honesty) that `grep
> microsoft ghc/README` adds to the effect.
It might be scary at first, but it actually has helped improve my
opinion of Microsoft a lot over the course of the last year :-). After
all, Microsoft already has made a donation to the free software
community. I wouldn't have expected that...
CU,
Wolfgang
--Apple-Mail-1-420595987
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/enriched;
charset=US-ASCII
<excerpt><color><param>0000,0000,DEDE</param>I'm being provocative, I
know. I'm not trying to insult though, just to
encourage a creative discussion.
</color></excerpt>
Me too. But I've never seen a flame war on any haskell list, so I
trust that no one will be insulted if we present our differing
opinions in a strong way. We'll just have to take this discussion
elsewhere (where?) in case it starts to generate too much noise on
this list. This list shouldn't become "glasgow-haskell-politics",
after all.
--- cut here if you aren't interested in political rants ---
<excerpt>:) The question here is, are you (plural) really trying to
write Free Software
or just giving something away now, which will be closed and hogged
later?
</excerpt>
They probably don't want to restrict people's freedom to create
non-free versions. At least that would be my motive.
My main problem with the GPL is that if my code is placed under GPL,
it is misused as a political tool to enforce a rather extreme vision -
a world _without_ proprietary software. While it is a "valid"
viewpoint, it's far too extreme for me - I _want_ to write proprietary
software.
Let's suppose that Microsoft decides that it's time to integrate a
proprietary version of GHC into Visual Studio... and suppose that the
current main GHC developers will work on the non-free version. Is that
a problem? No. It would generate enough additional interest in Haskell
to keep up development on the free version.
Let's suppose on the other hand, that the main GHC developers decide
to release the next version of GHC and its libraries under GPL. That
would mean that it cannot be used to create proprietary software, or
to create software that doesn't include a political manifesto by RMS.
I doubt that there will be enough talented people available to develop
a non-GPLed free version of GHC in parallel. It would destroy any hope
of widespread use of Haskell in the "real world".
<excerpt>Anybody writing truly Free Software
should have no problem with it, while any non-free efforts are left
out.
</excerpt>
I feel that Truly Free Software doesn't leave anyone out. I feel that
Truly Free Software doesn't force anyone to distribute political
manifestoes that he/she doesn't necessarily agree with. I feel that
Truly Free Software doesn't impose silly restrictions on static vs
dynamic linking (as the LGPL does). I believe that Truly Free Software
shouldn't have a license that could be classified as a (admittedly
relatively benign) computer virus.
I have a problem with the GPL because, while I'm strongly in favor of
Free Software, I have no problem with proprietary software. If my code
is released under GPL, It becomes a political tool.
<excerpt>"GHC doesn't want to be GPL... why? - Would they close it
once they smell
money in it?".
</excerpt>
Well, they can't really close it -- the license is a value, not an
IORef :-). They can make a closed copy of it. While it would be a pity
if those talented people who are currently employed at Microsoft
Research would stop contributing code to the free version, it would
concern me less than if GHC was put under GPL. And everyone who has
seen the GPLed version would then be forbidden to work on a
proprietary version of the old non-GPLed source base, because the FSF
could sue him for copyright infringement if RMS feels that there is an
opportunity to take out a non-free competitor to a free software
product. Not my idea of freedom.
The current license leaves the most freedom to everyone. That includes
things that some of us would not like to happen - but why give up
freedom just because some "bad guys" might come along and do something
that some (not all) "good guys" don't like?
<excerpt>I have that fear, and I'd be really happy if someone could
relieve me of it.
</excerpt>
And while you're at it, you could relieve me of my fear that the
official GHC distribution could switch to a GNU license...
<excerpt>I'll admit here (for the sake of honesty) that `grep
microsoft ghc/README` adds to the effect.
</excerpt>
It might be scary at first, but it actually has helped improve my
opinion of Microsoft a lot over the course of the last year :-). After
all, Microsoft already has made a donation to the free software
community. I wouldn't have expected that...
CU,
Wolfgang
--Apple-Mail-1-420595987--