Thinking about what's missing in our library coverage
ml at isaac.cedarswampstudios.org
Wed Aug 5 10:59:35 EDT 2009
Simon Marlow wrote:
> On 05/08/2009 14:58, Axel Simon wrote:
>> On Aug 5, 2009, at 15:44, Malcolm Wallace wrote:
>>>> I don't think it would be much of a problem to weaken the license of
>>>> Gtk2Hs to a BSD license.
>>> Don't forget you would need to obtain the consent of all contributors,
>>> whose patches are also under the LGPL.
>> True, but if I propose a discussion period on our mailing list during
>> which people can object, then I think that would be sufficient.
> I think strictly speaking you have to get explicit consent, rather than
> the absence of objection.
which GHC and the other BSD-components don't technically get, but it's
strongly implied by submitting a patch. Similar for LGPL+exception
(technically a contributor would be allowed to distribute a patch under
just LGPL, or just GPL, or even GPL-2-only or GPL-3-only if they were
silly). Socially, patches are generally assumed to be the same as the
Can we get a list of all the Gtk2Hs code-contributors? (in which if a
person only ever submitted less than a dozen lines of significant
patches, it's probably not copyright significant) Also, does anyone
here have an argument against trying to relicense? (and is it allowed,
or is Gtk2Hs a "derivative work" of Gtk+ even when distributed
separately?... I think it *ought* to be allowed in this particular
circumstance, it wouldn't hardly be against the spirit of LGPL since
Gtk2Hs is mainly simply a binding, but I'm not a lawyer :-)
More information about the Libraries