The next step

[Simon Marlow]

> > On the other hand, I certainly don't want to discourage people from
> > contributing because they don't like our license requirements.  But
> > things are going to get real messy if every file has its=20
> own license.
> > Looking down the hierarchy we have at the moment, much of=20
> the existing
> > code (from hslibs, the FFI project etc.) is either under=20
> the GHC license
> > or is licenseless.  So would it be too painful to ask that=20
> anyone who
> > wants to contribute code under the LGPL does it in a=20
> separate part of
> > the repository?
>=20
> Maybe I haven't paid enough attention to the previous
> discussion about the library organisation, but what are the
> criteria for libraries to be in the magic set which should
> not use the LGPL? =20

I wasn't planning to separate the libraries logically (i.e. you still
get all the libraries when you install GHC), only separate them
physically by keeping the sources in different parts of the repository.
This is I think the minimum we need to do if we have code with different
licenses in the same tree.  I'll do this on a lazy basis: as soon as
someone comes along with LGPL code they want to contribute, we'll set up
the repository.

The criteria for a library to be in the "magic set" (I'm going to call
it the core set for now) is nothing more than conforming to a set of
guidelines that we've yet to decide on.  I'm drafting up a proposal at
the moment.

Cheers,
	Simon