Thinking about what's missing in our library coverage

[Don Stewart]

jgoerzen:
> 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.
> 
> I would be happy to put a static linking exemption into the COPYRIGHT
> file for all of my LGPL libraries.  My intent with using LGPL instead of
> BSD is not to pollute end users' work or other libraries they use, but
> rather to keep the LGPL'd library free and open since I am giving out it
> in a free and open way.  That is, I don't want someone to take my LGPL'd
> library, make it closed source, and sell copies of the library...  if
> they want to sell a different product that happens to use a database and
> keep it closed source, that's fine with me.
> 
> Perhaps the community could come up with a standard boilerplate static
> linking exemption that we could all use?
> 

Great!

We might want to borrow ideas from the OCaml license then,

    http://caml.inria.fr/ocaml/license.en.html

    The Library is distributed under the terms of the GNU Library General
    Public License version 2 (included below).

    As a special exception to the Q Public Licence, ** you may develop
    application programs, reusable components and other software items that
    link with the original or modified versions of the Compiler and are not
    made available to the general public, without any of the additional
    requirements listed in clause 6c of the Q Public licence. **