Replacement for GMP: Update

[Florian Weimer]

* 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.