Licenses

[Dylan Thurston]

On Sat, May 26, 2001 at 05:31:27PM +1000, Manuel M. T. Chakravarty wrote:
> "Simon Marlow" <simonmar@microsoft.com> wrote,
> 
> >   - License: I'd prefer to specify a BSD-style (without advertising
> >     clause) license, with copyright on individual files remaining with
> >     the authors.  GPL code creates particular problems for us here,
> >     so I'm keen to avoid it if possible.
> 
> I don't think that it is a good idea to specify a license.
> For example, I am convinced that the (L)GPL is the better
> licence for the community. ...

I'm a big fan of the GPL; however, you must know that picking the GPL
for a library (particularly a standard library) is a very political
act.  Even the FSF only does this occasionally.  The LGPL seems less
controversial to me, and would be my choice.  (But I'm not the one to
choose, and I will be happy as long as the libraries are free (libre).)

I also think that a standard license for the standard libraries is
important.  With every new license that gets involved in a project, I
have to make a decision; I'd rather make that decision just once, when
I decide to use Haskell.

[Apologies if this starts a big licensing discussion.  I think this is
one of the very few times it is appropriate; I believe these issues
are important.]

Best,
	Dylan Thurston