Haskell Platform Proposal: HLint

Duncan Coutts duncan.coutts at googlemail.com
Thu Nov 11 15:15:16 EST 2010

On 11 November 2010 13:29, Niklas Broberg <niklas.broberg at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 1:52 PM, Malcolm Wallace <malcolm.wallace at me.com> wrote:
>>>> Libraries with non-BSD deps haven't been considered for the HP, and
>>>> would be problematic, in my opinion.
>>> I'd like to propose a policy along the lines that HP packages must be
>>> usable for developing software under any reasonable license including
>>> proprietary licenses.
>> I've been wondering whether there is any mileage in having a secondary,
>> separate, "free" Platform, that is, containing only LGPL libraries and GPL
>> tools.  This way, it would be much easier to ensure that BSD libraries in
>> the standard Platform do not depend inadvertently on LGPL'd libraries.  If a
>> Platform user wants to be unburdened from licensing worries, they can use
>> the BSD Platform only.  If they care about software freedom, then they can
>> overlay the LGPL/GPL Platform on top.
> And what of BSD libraries in the standard Platform that (would like
> to) deliberately depend on LGPL'd libraries?
> We have a concrete example: haskell-src-exts (BSD) depends on cpphs
> (LGPL), not as a tool but as a library.

In principle there is no problem with BSD code depending on LGPL code,
just as there is no problem with LGPL code depending on BSD code. In
both cases you must comply with both licences. (As a practical issue
it is important to make sure users are aware that they must comply
with both licenses, so the labelling is important.)

Under Malcolm's proposal you'd have to move the BSD code into the other layer.


More information about the Libraries mailing list