[Haskell-cafe] Re: base-4 + gtk2hs-0.10.0 licensing

Ketil Malde ketil at malde.org
Thu Feb 26 03:17:42 EST 2009

Peter Hercek <phercek at gmail.com> writes:

>> Relinking against newer Gtk2Hs versions might not work.

You have the option of recompiling the new Gtk2Hs with the old GHC and
relinking, don't you?

>> I want to repeat what I’ve said earlier on this list: For Haskell,
>> there is no real difference between LGPL and GPL, as far as I
>> understand it.

> Of course there is a difference and a *significant* one.
> * A GPL library will force commercial users of the library to release
> their code under GPL.
> * An LGPL library will force commercial users to release their source
> code only to the users of their program (which already bought it) and
> only for the purpose of recompiling with a newer version of the LGPL
> library.

> Am I missing something?

Yes.  At least in my jurisdiction, the *intent* of the licensing
matters.  I think it is fair to say that the intent of the LGPL is
maintaned as long as you redistribute any modifications you make to
the LGPL library.

An easy thing to do here would be to get a written statement from the
author about the interpretation with regard to what you intend to do -
like Duncan posted.

>> If you don’t want to force the users of your library to use an open
>> source license for their work then use BSD3 or a similar license
>> for your library 

There is also a rather significant difference for open source software
- if I use BSD, somebody might modify and ship closed versions of my
library.  If I use LGPL, somebody can combine it with other open
source code, with licenses that may not be GPL-compatible.  So I
believe LGPL is less "viral" than GPL.

This is just opinion, but if you wanted guarantees, you'd talk to a
lawyer, and not post on a mailing list.

If I haven't seen further, it is by standing in the footprints of giants

More information about the Haskell-Cafe mailing list