[Haskell-cafe] Re: Hmm, what license to use?

[Don Stewart]

magnus:
> On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 3:31 AM, brian <brianchina60221 at gmail.com> wrote:
> [..]
> > as big a problem as I imagined. My understanding is that I can satisfy
> > the requirements of the LGPL by dynamically linking, and that's
> > already happening. Is there something else to worry about? I'd be in
> > violation if I shipped something statically linked, but cabal doesn't
> > seem inclined to do that by default.
> 
> I'm not sure I understand you here.  Would you clarify your words
> here, bearing in mind that GHC doesn't do dynamic linking of Haskell
> modules?

Yes, its very simple:

    * C libraries are classically dynamically linked, so you're in
      compliance there with any LGPL C lib you use. (under the usual
      interpretation of the LGPL)

    * Haskell libraries are always statically linked and agressively
      inlined, so opinion seems to be that LGPL licensed *Haskell
      libaries* are unsuitable for any projects you want to ship
      commercially, without source code.

    * Only a small percent of Haskell libarires are LGPL, and nothing
      for which we don't have workarounds (e.g. HDBC vs galois-sqlite3
      vs takusen).

    * None of the core system or Haskell platform are LGPLd, they're all
      "BSD3"

    * "BSD3" style reminds the vast majority, and preferred license, for
      Haskell code.

IANAL.

-- Don "ship some Haskell today" Stewart