Replacement for GMP: Update

Florian Weimer fw at
Sat Aug 12 02:03:45 EDT 2006

* Peter Tanski:

> Quite right; my mistake: under the OpenSSL license a developer cannot
> mention features of the software in advertising materials, so the
> license grant of the GPL-OpenSSL program to the developer is void.
> The reason I mentioned "users" only was that in the particular
> problem we have here GHC does not use any other GPL programs (I think
> I am correct--readline is the unix version, not the GPL version,
> correct?)

On most systems, readline is GPLed.  There is a non-copyleft
reimplementation somewhere, but I don't think it's widely used.

> The advertising requirement in the OpenSSL license would certainly
> constitute a "further restriction" under GPLv2 section 6; the
> strange implication is that the "no further restriction" clause is
> so broad

It has to be very broad, otherwise developers could bypass the
copyleft concept.

> the same clause (verbatim) in section 10 of the LGPL means the GPL
> license is incompatible with the terms of the LGPL!

The LGPL permits relicensing of covered works under the GPL.  Without
that provision, it would indeed be incompatible with the GPL.

More information about the Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list