Thinking about what's missing in our library coverage
Axel.Simon at ens.fr
Wed Aug 5 13:16:34 EDT 2009
On Aug 5, 2009, at 16:59, Isaac Dupree wrote:
> 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
>>>> whose patches are also under the LGPL.
>>> True, but if I propose a discussion period on our mailing list
>>> 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 :-)
When I re-implemented a binding for Gtk+, I chose LGPL because Manuel
Chakravaty used LGPL for his Gtk+Hs binding. I did have a few
requests to move to a BSD license from people who wanted to ship
commercial Haskell applications.
We once moved from version 2 of LGPL to version 3 at least for some
or our code and we have tried to get consent from the relevant people
before which was no big deal. Thus, I don't think it is a big problem
unless people are in for an ideological license debate.
More information about the Libraries