possible readline license problem with ghc and -package util

[Sven Moritz Hallberg]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Wednesday 12. June 2002 12:03, Simon Marlow wrote:
> Well, nothing like a good license debate to wake everyone up ;-)  Anyon=
e
> heard of a "bikeshed" discussion before?

Hm, no clue, never heard that term... ;-) No, really, though.


> Firstly, let me make it clear that GHC won't be switching to the GPL or
> even a dual license in the forseeable future.  The University of Glasgo=
w
> agreed to the BSD license, and frankly I can't see them agreeing to the
> GPL.  And it's been widely publicised that Microsoft won't touch the GP=
L
> with a bargepole; enough said.
>
> Personally, I wouldn't mind dual-licensing GHC, because in a sense that
> gives people more freedom: more freedom to choose which licensing terms
> they accept the code under.  But I *do* believe that on its own the BSD
> license is morally the right choice.  Sure, if the main line of GHC
> development moved to a non-free source base, then users would lose out;
> but I don't think that it is right to *legislate* against this by
> restricting the freedom of programmers.  If the developers, by their ow=
n
> free will, decide to create a non-free fork, then so be it.  After all,
> even the GPL can't force developers to continue working on the code if
> they don't want to.
>
> But let me set minds at rest by saying that I'm not aware of any plans,
> at Microsoft or otherwise, to create a non-free fork of GHC.

OK, that's a diplomatic answer, but that's fine with me. I must say, I di=
d not=20
like to start this discussion, because I feel a bit insulting towards the=
=20
Microsoft researchers, always sounding suspicious. Please be assured that=
 I=20
deeply respect anyone working on GHC. I am free of prejudice, just curiou=
s. I=20
hereby officially part from this thread, as my wish for reactions is now=20
fulfilled.


> Sven Moritz Hallberg <pesco@gmx.de> writes:
> > Put short, I'd like GHC to stay free. I'd like
> > the GHC source to remain available, and the developers to remain
> > reachable,
> > touchable. Basically I want the GHC development process to work in th=
e
> > open
> > same way as it does now. If someone can make that promise to me I wil=
l
> > be
> > satisfied.
>
> Understandably, you'd like continued access to an open source
> actively-developed top-of-the-line Haskell compiler.  I don't believe
> using a license is the right way to achieve this, though;

Right, I want to stress again that I didn't want to suggest licensing GHC=
=20
under the GPL. I personally have no interest in licenses whatsoever,=20
actually. My sole intention was to provoke comments on how people see the=
=20
future of GHC.


Regards,
Sven moritz
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE9B5b/Bz8tX8KX/qsRArM/AJ0eOyL7OlcfpMii/NvepZs+qEz8PQCfU+pY
eeYaGLVaILS8WOXYYumwORo=3D
=3DcTG3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----