Thinking about what's missing in our library coverage

Magnus Therning magnus at
Mon Aug 10 11:00:24 EDT 2009

On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 3:56 PM, Ian Lynagh<igloo at> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 01:45:22PM +0100, Duncan Coutts wrote:
>> It's clear that the licensing issue is going to be controversial and
>> will take some time. I'm not sure it is sensible to try and work it out
>> before the next major release, given that the higher priority has to be
>> agreeing the procedure for adding packages. If we do not get around to
>> agreeing the licensing issue then the default position has to be no new
>> licenses 'til we do work it out properly.
> Or to put it another way, decide that "Licence is BSD or MIT" (or
> whatever the list really is) is a requirement for the upcoming major
> release.
> I'd agree with that. Generally, I think that conservatism is the best
> answer for the platform. It will be a lot worse to put something in and
> then decide to take it out again, than to decide to leave it out for now
> and then put it in a few months later.

Would it make sense to decide already now that when GHC has enough
support for dynamic libs to make it easy to comply with LGPL (without
linkage exceptions), then the set of "HP approved licenses" will be
extended to include LGPL?

Would the up-and-comming Hackell compilers (who might not have dyn lib
support) be happy with that?


Magnus Therning                        (OpenPGP: 0xAB4DFBA4)          Jabber:|twitter: magthe

More information about the Libraries mailing list