[Haskell-cafe] LGPL and Haskell (Was: Re: ANNOUNCE: tie-knot library)

[Jonathan Fischer Friberg]

+1

Very similar to my point (see original thread), but put in a better way. :)
As an interesting coincidence, this exact thing happened to someone
just now. (thread "containers license issue")

Jonathan

On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 5:00 PM, Clark Gaebel <cgaebel at uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
> Since we've already heard from the aggressive (L)GPL side of this "debate",
> I think it's time for someone to provide the opposite opinion.
>
> I write code to help users. However, as a library designer, my users are
> programmers just like me. Writing my Haskell libraries with restrictions
> like the (L)GPL means my users need to jump through hoops to use my
> software, and I personally find that unacceptable. Therefore, I gravitate
> more towards BSD3 and "beer-ware" type licenses. This also means my users
> aren't subjected to my religious views just because they want to use my
> "ones and zeros".
>
> Also, with GHC's aggressive inlining, even if you do have a static linking
> exception in your (L)GPL license, it still may not hold up! Although the
> entire idea is untested in court, GHC can (and will!) inline potentially
> huge parts of statically linked libraries into your code, and this would
> force you to break the license terms if you were to distribute the software
> without source code. In Haskell-land, the GPL is the ultimate in viral
> licensing, and very hard to escape.
>
> That's why I don't use (L)GPL licenses.
>
> Just making sure both sides have a horse in this race :)
>   - Clark
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 9:51 AM, kudah <kudahkukarek at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 12 Dec 2012 10:06:23 +0100 Petr P <petr.mvd at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > 2012/12/12 David Thomas <davidleothomas at gmail.com>
>> >
>> > Yet another solution would be
>> > what David Thomas suggest: To provide the source code to your users,
>> > but don't allow them to use the code for anything but relinking the
>> > program with a different version of the library (no distribution, no
>> > modification etc.).
>>
>> You can also provide object code for linking, though I'm sure this
>> will not work with Haskell object files. Providing alternative
>> distribution of your program linked dynamically, or a promise to
>> provide one on notice, also satisfies the LGPL as long as
>> dynamic-version is as functional as the static and can be dropped-in
>> as a replacement.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Haskell-Cafe mailing list
>> Haskell-Cafe at haskell.org
>> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Haskell-Cafe mailing list
> Haskell-Cafe at haskell.org
> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
>