Thinking about what's missing in our library coverage

[Isaac Dupree]

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 
source license...

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 :-)

-Isaac