Haskell Platform Proposal: HLint

Simon Marlow marlowsd at gmail.com
Tue Dec 7 09:30:44 CET 2010

On 05/12/10 22:28, Conrad Parker wrote:
> On 4 December 2010 00:04, Simon Marlow<marlowsd at gmail.com>  wrote:
>> On 12/11/2010 19:38, Duncan Coutts wrote:
>>> On 12 November 2010 18:58, Malcolm Wallace<malcolm.wallace at me.com>    wrote:
>>>>> since we have after all been shipping GPL tools and LGPL C libs along
>>>>> with
>>>>> ghc for
>>>>> some years.
>>>> Indeed.   For many years, every program compiled by ghc (using libgmp to
>>>> implement the unbounded Integer type) automatically fell under the terms
>>>> of
>>>> the LGPL.  Is that still the case?
>>> Yes.
>> Well, it's not clear that the license on GMP applies to executables that
>> just dynamically link against it.  There is considerable disagreement on
>> that point, AIUI.  But executables that dynamically link against GMP are in
>> compliance with the LGPL anyway, so it doesn't really matter.
>> We also use system calls, and yet the Linux kernel is GPL'd...
> ~/src/linux/linux-2.6$ head COPYING
>     NOTE! This copyright does *not* cover user programs that use kernel
>   services by normal system calls - this is merely considered normal use
>   of the kernel, and does *not* fall under the heading of "derived work".
>   Also note that the GPL below is copyrighted by the Free Software
>   Foundation, but the instance of code that it refers to (the Linux
>   kernel) is copyrighted by me and others who actually wrote it.
>   Also note that the only valid version of the GPL as far as the kernel
>   is concerned is _this_ particular version of the license (ie v2, not
> ...

Well yes, I *know* that the GPL isn't supposed to leak from the kernel 
into userland programs, but I was just pointing out the similarity 
between this and dynamically linked libraries.


More information about the Libraries mailing list