[Haskell] Re: [Haskell-cafe] ANN: TextRegexLazy-0.56,
(=~) and (=~~) are here
brianh at metamilk.com
Wed Aug 2 18:15:17 EDT 2006
Chris Kuklewicz wrote:
> Announcing: TextRegexLazy version 0.56
> Where: Tarball from http://sourceforge.net/projects/lazy-regex
> darcs get --partial [--tag=0.56]
> http://evenmere.org/~chrisk/trl/stable/ License : BSD, except for
Great! - Thanks for all your hard work in making this available to everyone!
> DFAEngine.hs which is LGPL (derived from CTK light)
I sense some possible problems coming...
[in another post]
>Bulat Ziganshin wrote:
>> Hello Chris,
>> Wednesday, August 2, 2006, 3:16:58 PM, you wrote:
>>> Announcing: TextRegexLazy version 0.56
>> your feature list is really strong! it will be great now to make it
>> a part of GHC standard distribution
Does the LGPL license for DFAEngine.hs use the static linking exception or
If so, and if it is desirable to allow LGPL code without the static linking
exception into the standard lib distro, then perhaps a useful project for
someone would be to write a Haskell program that traverses source for an app
and builds an appropriate static library containing the object code for all
non-LGPL modules, with debug info stripped etc so that it's obfuscated (this
being the object that must also be distributed to satisfy the linkage
requirements of the LGPL licences for the other modules + GMP math lib), and
also makes a list of all the LGPL modules and creates a text file containing
the total merged licence agreement that one needs to distribute with one's
exe. Note however that unfortunately this might not solve the problem in the
face of whole-program optimization unless the LGPL conditions would be
satisfied by the ability to build a non-optimized app but I've a feeling
(though I'm certainly not a lawyer or legal expert) that this might
unfortunately be at bit optimistic.
I wonder what deviation from the code in DFAEngine.hs would be legally
regarded as being "different" code so we could make the modifications and
put a BSD3 licence on it. Should licences and other legal stuff (the ghosts
of Ancient Rome which had their rightful place at a much earlier stage of
human history) apply to type definitions, mathematical insights, functions
etc in the first place? (Shakespeare's play "The Merchant of Venice" says it
On a more positive note, I note that the European Parliament voted (last
year iirc) that software patents are just a lot of rubbish and are null and
void in Europe so at least that's one tender bud of common sense that's
managed to burst through the asphalt.
Freedom has no strings attached.
Laws originate all the human misery on the planet.
More information about the Haskell