On 22-Jul-1998, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I do think that the GNU license would be a mistake -- as I understand, it
> would prevent the use of GHC in commercial projects, and I'm pretty sure
> that's something Simon wants to *encourage*.
There are two simple ways to avoid this problem.
One is to license the compiler itself under the GPL but the libraries
and runtime system under the LGPL (GNU Library General Public License).
For example, this is the approach we used for the Mercury implementation.
Another is to license them all under the GPL but to add a special exception
that means that programs linked with the libraries and runtime are not
covered by the GPL. This is the approach taken by GNU C and GNU Ada.
Here's the exact wording of the exception used for the GNU C runtime
(from libgcc2.c in the gcc distribution):
/* As a special exception, if you link this library with other files,
some of which are compiled with GCC, to produce an executable,
this library does not by itself cause the resulting executable
to be covered by the GNU General Public License.
This exception does not however invalidate any other reasons why
the executable file might be covered by the GNU General Public License. */
--
Fergus Henderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | "I have always known that the pursuit
WWW: <http://www.cs.mu.oz.au/~fjh> | of excellence is a lethal habit"
PGP: finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- the last words of T. S. Garp.
