possible readline license problem with ghc and -package util

[Sven Moritz Hallberg]

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

On Thursday 13. June 2002 03:12, Manuel M. T. Chakravarty wrote:
> Sven Moritz Hallberg <pesco@gmx.de> wrote,
>
> > On Wednesday 12. June 2002 10:12, Manuel M. T. Chakravarty wrote:
> > > Knowing the GHC developers for quite a while (and having had
> > > BSD versus GPL discussions with them before), my answer
> > > would be that they are perfectly trustworthy, but suffer
> > > from the common "BSD is more free than GPL" misconception[1].
> > > Otherwise, they are perfectly nice guys (even if they have a
> > > @microsoft.com address ;-)
> >
> > I see the people being very nice. But there is the question whether M=
S
> > would draw them away from GHC if it desides to go full-scale with
> > something based on GHC. That would surely hit GHC hard. If they could
> > just say, no, we're here to stay, MS is paying us, but they just want=
 to
> > use the compiler we make, not own it, I'd be perfectly fine.
>
> That's an assurance beyond any license that you will rarely
> get.  Even on a GPL'ed project, the company could always
> drop the funding unless the company's core business depends
> on that software.

Dang, thought I was done... ;)
But this answer seems important.

I wasn't talking about simply dropping the funding. I meant pulling the=20
developers from the open project into a closed one with the same goal, wh=
ich=20
of course will be based on the open project. This could quite likely mean=
 a=20
fatal blow to free GHC, in favour of a big "professional" product. That's=
 a=20
real danger, I'm just trying to point that out. Please don't get me wrong=
,=20
I'm not trying to attack anyone, nor am I expecting any action, like=20
relicensing GHC or anything. I've already got an answer from Simon, which=
 I=20
beleive weighs enough. _But_ his answer "I'm not aware of any plans,
at Microsoft or otherwise, to create a non-free fork of GHC" does not at =
all=20
mean that the danger I'm pointing at is no longer there. I'm absolutely n=
ot=20
blaming Simon for it though. It's really hard for me to try not to insult=
=20
anyone. I'll shut up now, I've made my point.


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

iD8DBQE9CFSbBz8tX8KX/qsRAplXAJwMdzip2/zV/KtUMLneAbsLZH2qDACfY3cC
2hUlPARH1hI6XRwTDK1JhcM=3D
=3DpuBU
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----