Glasgow mafia meeting at PLDI

[Manuel M. T. Chakravarty]

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

> 12) Licenses
> 
>   I think we decided that the essence of the BSD/LGPL debate was:
> 
>   o BSD fans think that "contamination" is bad
>   o LGPL fans think that "contamination" is good

*sigh* Could we leave the rhetoric to Craig Mundie?
Everybody thinks that "contamination" is bad.  This is why
such words are not helpful in a technical discussion.
(L)GPL is about protection - it protects you from predators
like your favourite software monopoly.  If you think that
you don't need protection, fine.  I prefer to cover my back.

>   This is basically a religious argument on which no agreement is likely
>   to be reached by zealots on either side.

That's a statement with which I can wholeheartedly agree.

>   As far as I [ADR] can tell, the debate about just how the LGPL applies
>   to Haskell is a red-herring.  Even if we understood it and agreed it
>   was reasonably specified and appropriate in a Haskell context, BSD
>   fans would still not want LGPL.  (That's certainly my own feeling.)

With respect to the library standard, I agree.  However, the
discussion about how the LGPL applies to Haskell is still
interesting for those who code under the LGPL.

"Andy Gill" <andyjgill@home.com> wrote,

> (3) I'll mail out a response to the GPL/LGPL/BSD mailings as soon
> as I've digested the last few (100) messages! In short, though,
> we (Galois) would strongly prefer the library to be BSD only.

Let's face it.  As Alastair wrote, BSD people will code
under BSD, (L)GPL people will code under (L)GPL.  The two
camps have had endless discussions on uncounted mailing
lists and I doubt that we will come up with any new
arguments here.

Cheers,
Manuel