Yitzchak Gale wrote:
Isaac Dupree wrote:
GHC is in no legal trouble whatsoever... only if proprietary Haskell
code uses the readline library and doesn't switch to using the editline
backend.
Agreed. I didn't mean that GHC itself was ever in any
legal trouble. But as a compiler, it must be possible for
users to compile with it without getting into legal trouble.
Yes. I'm still learning Haskell, and it's my intention to use GHC to
produce commercial plugins for an application on Windows (and possibly
OS X, haven't decided yet). This whole discussion makes me worry - not
because I have any intention to break any licences, but because I might
do so by accident. At this point in my learning, I've got no idea what
will cause "problem packages" (problems from my point of view being ones
that cause a phone call to a lawyer) to be linked in to my binaries. It
would be enormously helpful if there was a wiki page somewhere that said
"To use GHC/mingw as a compiler for commercial software, it's likely you
want to avoid these modules and command-line flags" or alternatively "To
guarantee that no LGPL or GPL libraries are linked, use these flags".
The last thing I want is to cause myself extra work when someone chucks
my plugin through a hex editor, sees a whole load of GMP symbols (for
example) and demands some form of compliance that commercially I'd
rather avoid.
--
Alex
_______________________________________________
Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
