Haskell Platform Proposal: HLint

Duncan Coutts duncan.coutts at googlemail.com
Fri Nov 12 15:18:17 EST 2010

On 12 November 2010 19:52, Malcolm Wallace <malcolm.wallace at me.com> wrote:
>> The IHG did some work to move the GMP dependency from the RTS to a new
>> integer-gmp package. The base library now uses this package to
>> implement the Integer type. It is also possible to use an alternative
>> integer package but you have to rebuild base and the rest of the
>> world. The default remains integer-gmp.
> So what you are saying is that the Haskell Platform already includes (by
> default, unless someone goes to unusual lengths to avoid it), an LGPL
> library, which no-one has (yet) objected to.

People have in the past occasionally grumbled, especially windows
users where gmp is linked statically. I expect you can find a few old
threads on the topic. I would not characterise it as strenuous
objections or serious attempts to change the status quo. The nearest
thing is the GMP work the IHG did which at least makes it possible.

>> I'm pretty sure that under a strict reading we're
>> violating the licence of the H98 and FFI reports because we do not
>> reproduced them in their entirety.
> The H'98 (pace H'2010) licence says:
> "The authors and publisher intend this Report to belong to the entire
> Haskell community, and grant permission to copy and distribute it for any
> purpose, provided that it is reproduced in its entirety, including this
> Notice.  Modified versions of this Report may also be copied and distributed
> for any purpose, provided that the modified version is clearly presented as
> such, and that it does not claim to be a definition of the language Haskell
> 98[2010]."
> Distributing the source code of the H'98 (2010) libraries is indeed a
> failure to distribute the Report in its entirety.  But as long the source
> code makes it clear that it does not claim to be an unmodified _definition_
> of the language (or libraries?), then I think the licence permits it.

Ah, so you read the second sentence as an alternative, so you can
comply by picking either the first or the second. Does that mean if we
pick the second that we do not need to include the notice? :-)


More information about the Libraries mailing list