The next step

[Manuel M. T. Chakravarty]

Alastair David Reid <reid@cs.utah.edu> wrote,

> Manuel M T Chakravarty <chak@cse.unsw.edu.au> writes:
> 
> > Depends on the library.  I agree with you that the really core stuff
> > and in particular the "language extension"-related libraries should
> > be completely unrestricted.
> 
> In particular, I would be unhappy to see the Hugs or GHC distributions
> change from being pure BSD license but I'd like to see all the major
> libraries come as part of the standard distribution.

When the number of libraries grows it may also be
technically more feasible to seperate them into extra
packages.  GHC, for example, is already pretty big.  For
teaching purpose I want to recommend my students to install
it at their machines at home, but they don't need all
libraries and are happy about smaller installs.  Just as an
example.

> The "purity" aspect is as important as the choice of license - it is
> hard enough to understand one license but if you get a package which
> is covered by multiple licenses then you're pretty-much hosed.  

If it is distinct libraries where the difference lies, I
don't see it as much of a problem.  When you buy a Linux CD,
you also get a wild mix of licenses - also with the
pre-installed libraries.  Still this doesn't seem to lower
the popularity of Linux much.

Cheers,
Manuel