Simon L Peyton Jones wrote:
So far as GHC is concerned, I wrote on this list a month ago:
"More specifically, I plan to continue beavering away on GHC.
GHC is public domain software, and Microsoft are happy for it to
remain so, source code and all. If anything, I'll have quite a bit
more
Simon L Peyton Jones wrote:
So far as GHC is concerned, I wrote on this list a month ago:
"More specifically, I plan to continue beavering away on GHC.
GHC is public domain software, and Microsoft are happy for it to
remain so, source code and all. If anything, I'll have quite a bit
"Simon" == Simon L Peyton Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Simon L Peyton Jones wrote:
So far as GHC is concerned, I wrote on this list a month ago:
"More specifically, I plan to continue beavering away on GHC.
GHC is public domain software, and Microsoft are happy for it to
remain so,
Simon L Peyton Jones wrote:
Simon L Peyton Jones wrote:
Do you mean "public domain" literally, i.e. are you renouncing all
copyright? (The source code contains copyright notices, but no
licence, as far as I can see.)
No I am not renouncing all copyright. By "public domain" I mean
Jorgen Frojk Kjaersgaard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It might be a good idea to publish GHC under the GNU Public License or
something similar. It grants everybody the right to use the software for
any purpose, including making extensions or modifications of it - as long
as the "derived work" is
It might be a good idea to publish GHC under the GNU Public License or
something similar. It grants everybody the right to use the software for
any purpose, including making extensions or modifications of it - as long
as the "derived work" is published under GPL as well. This ensures that
On Tue, 21 Jul 1998, Simon L Peyton Jones wrote:
(...) But it's never been a problem so far, and I doubt it will in the
future, so I'm reluctant to invest the time until pressed to do so.
No need to apologize to a group of haskell fanatics for using lazy
evaluation to solve this problem
