Thinking about what's missing in our library coverage

Don Stewart dons at
Wed Aug 5 13:41:25 EDT 2009

> On 4 Aug 2009, at 23:05, Don Stewart wrote:
>> I would appreciate input from the HaXml and HDBC authors (our most
>> popular LGPL-licensed Haskell libraries) about what they feel the
>> licensing issues/constraints should be for the Haskell Platform.
> Licensing clarity is important for users I think.  But equally some  
> users may desire to use LGPL libraries too.  Hence my suggestion that  
> there be a separate platform of free/LGPL code (and GPL tools), which  
> can depend on the proprietary-friendly BSD-licensed platform, but not  
> the other way round.
>> I've not yet seen anyone publish something on how to satisfy LGPL
>> for Haskell libraries.
> The static-linking exception is the commonest means of working around  
> ghc's technical limitations here.  The exception is part of wxHaskell's 
> license (but not Gtk2hs's), and HaXml (+polyparse on which it depends) 
> has the exception too.

Ok. That's good to know. Perhaps in the cabal file for haxml you could
modify it to be license: Other than, and state somewhere that it is LGPL
with static linking exception.

Regarding a separate LGPL "non-free" platform, that will have to happen
further down the line.

-- Don

More information about the Libraries mailing list