Don Stewart dons at
Wed Apr 16 20:32:05 EDT 2008

> Yitzchak Gale:
> >OK for the time
> >being, but it would be really, really good to be able to compile
> >ghc without gmp.
> Well, just go ahead and write an alternative portable & high- 
> performance implementation of Integer.
> >This idea of a Mac OS X binary with statically-linked
> >gmp is nice, it is really convenient. But someone needs
> >to completely clarify the license issues in that case, and
> >make it completely clear to all users.
> I completely agree that we need to document the situation clearly.   
> Otherwise, I don't really see what the fuss is about.  Most GHC users 
> don't care whether GMP is linked into their code (as its either only  
> used internally or has a GPL-compatible license anyway).
> If a company wants to distribute GHC compiled binaries of non-GPL  
> compatible code, well, they have to compile their own version of GHC  
> on the Mac that links GMP dynamically, and then, use that version of  
> GHC to link their final product.  That is going to be a trivial task  
> compared to developing that product in the first place.  So, who 
> cares?

I agree: there's a lot of effort here without an obvious demand.

Do we know of anyone not using GHC commercially because the can't use GMP?

-- Don

More information about the Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list