Hi Felipe,
thanks for making me think about the licenses. Without your suggestion, I
wouldn't be aware of problems LGPL might cause for Haskell projects. And
I'm considering the possibility of using BSD (or a similar) license in the
future.
I'm aware of the issues you pointed out. As you say,
To take this out of the academic realm and into the real-life realm: I've
actually done projects for companies which have corporate policies
disallowing the usage of any copyleft licenses in their toolset. My use
case was a web application, which would not have been affected by a GPL
library usage
On 13 December 2012 08:09, Michael Snoyman mich...@snoyman.com wrote:
To take this out of the academic realm and into the real-life realm: I've
actually done projects for companies which have corporate policies
disallowing the usage of any copyleft licenses in their toolset. My use
case was a
Let me just chime in to give my 2 cents; I quote Micheal 100%; if we want
to push Haskell out of the academic/open source world to the real world,
well, GPL is not the way to go, due to its viral nature.
Cheers,
A.
On 13 December 2012 08:09, Michael Snoyman mich...@snoyman.com wrote:
To take
On Wed, 12 Dec 2012 17:27:03 +0100
Vo Minh Thu not...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not sure what your point is.
Re-implementing an algorithm is not a copyright infringement (nor is a
propagation of the original work). Algorithms are not covered by
copyright.
While algorithms aren't covered by
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 10:14 AM, Colin Adams colinpaulad...@gmail.comwrote:
On 13 December 2012 08:09, Michael Snoyman mich...@snoyman.com wrote:
To take this out of the academic realm and into the real-life realm: I've
actually done projects for companies which have corporate policies
On Thu, 13 Dec 2012 08:58:07 +1100
Ramana Kumar ramana.ku...@cl.cam.ac.uk wrote:
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 5:36 AM, Felipe Almeida Lessa
felipe.le...@gmail.com wrote:
A GPLed containers forces the library user to somehow get a way of
complying to the license.
The language here needs some
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 8:09 PM, Michael Snoyman mich...@snoyman.comwrote:
I also don't think that distributing programs is as small a market as you
think, and should also be something we support for commercial users of
Haskell.
Distributing programs commercially is compatible with
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 11:35 AM, Ramana Kumar ramana.ku...@cl.cam.ac.ukwrote:
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 8:09 PM, Michael Snoyman mich...@snoyman.comwrote:
I also don't think that distributing programs is as small a market as you
think, and should also be something we support for commercial
Dear Haskellers,
following up the recent discussion about copyleft licenses, I'd suggest a
(hopefully minor) improvement of Hackage: For each package, gather the list
of the licenses of everything it depends on. I think this would help
considerably people who don't want or can't use software
Hi Clark,
The question of sequential loops in Accelerate has come up a few times in the
past. The main sticking point is knowing how to implement them in a way that
encourages efficient programs; avoiding irregular arrays (iteration depths),
discouraging scalar versions of collective combinators,
On Thu, 13 Dec 2012 11:41:14 +0100, Petr P petr@gmail.com wrote:
For each package, gather the list
of the licenses of everything it depends on. I think this would help
considerably people who don't want or can't use software licensed under a
particular license (most often (L)GPL). In
I think that's a great idea. I just implemented this on PackDeps:
http://packdeps.haskellers.com/licenses
As with all features on that site, I'll be happy to deprecate it as soon as
Hackage incorporates the feature in the future.
Michael
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 12:41 PM, Petr P
Outside of the Valley and FOSS movement, programs are still usually
distributed as binaries.
For example, I have a secret, dirty desire to write a game in Haskell. This
would be closed source, and if I'd have to rewrite most of the supporting
libraries, it would be a nonstarter.
Plus, it's hard
Sometimes we need some divergence in kernels, such as the random number
generation example I just posted. Technically (but not practically), we
could have a thread executing forever.
It's fine to discourage writing these loops, and with the proposed
signatures there still won't be any temptation
On 12/13/2012 12:51 PM, Michael Snoyman wrote:
I think that's a great idea. I just implemented this on PackDeps:
http://packdeps.haskellers.com/licenses
As with all features on that site, I'll be happy to deprecate it as
soon as Hackage incorporates the feature in the future.
awesome
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 3:53 PM, Vincent Hanquez t...@snarc.org wrote:
On 12/13/2012 12:51 PM, Michael Snoyman wrote:
I think that's a great idea. I just implemented this on PackDeps:
http://packdeps.haskellers.**com/licenseshttp://packdeps.haskellers.com/licenses
As with all features on
While you're at it, maybe whitelisting cpphs would be nice as well =).
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 12:03 PM, Michael Snoyman mich...@snoyman.com wrote:
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 3:53 PM, Vincent Hanquez t...@snarc.org wrote:
On 12/13/2012 12:51 PM, Michael Snoyman wrote:
I think that's a great
Alfredo Di Napoli alfredo.dinap...@gmail.com writes:
Let me just chime in to give my 2 cents; I quote Micheal 100%; if we want
to push Haskell out of the academic/open source world to the real world,
well, GPL is not the way to go, due to its viral nature.
just to throw in a different
Are you referring to:
http://code.haskell.org/cpphs/LICENCE-commercial
If the package is dual-licensed BSD3 and LGPL, maybe Malcolm could change
the cabal file to mention the BSD3 so that its package description is less
intimidating?
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 4:12 PM, Felipe Almeida Lessa
Hi, Haskellers!
I am happy to announce hoodle : pen note-taking program written in haskell.
Hoodle is a continuation of the development of hxournal. I renamed it
to hoodle, apparently meaning Haskell + doodle. It has undergone many
changes and bug fixes. Hopefully, this program is now useful to
From [1] I gather that its license really is LGPL/GPL. However, when
used as a preprocessor its license doesn't really matter. Many
packages on that list have a LGPL taint because one of its deps use
cpphs. So the whitelist of cpphs would be stating that nobody is
using cpphs as a library
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 11:11:28PM -0800, Chris Smith wrote:
Well, actual legal advice comes from actual lawyers, who often want actual
money.
That's true. However, haskell.org's fiscal sponsor receives pro bono
legal services.
I'm interested in what you saw as anti-copyleft FUD though.
Just my two cents: Nix is great, Modules is not perfect, but it is good.
I think that Nix solves a lot of the problems, but will likely take a while
to be adopted.
I'm still exploring Nix and NixOS, but I have to say: I really like it.
I've found that a practical solution for my own development
On 12/13/2012 08:34 AM, Clint Adams wrote:
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 11:11:28PM -0800, Chris Smith wrote:
That's true. However, haskell.org's fiscal sponsor receives pro bono
legal services.
I may have been conflating threads, though the response to what I assume
was just a lawyer asking
I'm not quite certain what to make of:
If you have a commercial use for cpphs, and feel the terms of the (L)GPL
are too onerous, you have the option of distributing unmodified binaries
(only, not sources) under the terms of a different licence (see
LICENCE-commercial).
It seems like that's
I didn't even know that site existed. Let's add them to the thread!
softwarefreedom.org, what are your opinions on what was discussed in this
thread:
http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell-cafe/2012-December/105193.html
Is there anything that we, as a community, should know about? Should we
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 08:40:09PM +0200, Michael Snoyman wrote:
If you have a commercial use for cpphs, and feel the terms of the (L)GPL
are too onerous, you have the option of distributing unmodified binaries
(only, not sources) under the terms of a different licence (see
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 9:51 PM, Daniel Trstenjak
daniel.trsten...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 08:40:09PM +0200, Michael Snoyman wrote:
If you have a commercial use for cpphs, and feel the terms of the (L)GPL
are too onerous, you have the option of distributing unmodified
Second Call for Copy: The Monad.Reader - Issue 21
-
Whether you're an established academic or have only just started
learning Haskell, if you have something to say, please consider
writing an article for The Monad.Reader! The submission deadline
On 13/12/2012, at 7:12 PM, Rustom Mody wrote:
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 1:29 AM, Brandon Allbery allber...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 12:51 PM, Andre Cunha andrecunha@gmail.com
wrote:
Janek, did you mean something like Rubygems (http://rubygems.org)? It manages
the
On 14/12/2012, at 7:45 AM, Christopher Howard wrote:
Just thought I'd mention: It is possible for anyone involved in a FOSS
project to get pro bono legal advice from the SFLC, from actual lawyers
who are highly familiar with the legal aspects of FOSS licenses:
On 12/13/2012 05:54 PM, Richard O'Keefe wrote:
On 14/12/2012, at 7:45 AM, Christopher Howard wrote:
Intimately familiar with New Zealand law, are they?
I couldn't say anything about that, specifically. However, SFLC has an
international outreach. From 2011 SFLC news:
quote:
We
On 12/12/12 3:07 AM, Janek S. wrote:
Dnia środa, 12 grudnia 2012, wren ng thornton napisał:
Other than that, it's hard to say. What part of the compiler are you
(most) interested in hacking on? The type system? The compilation down
to C-- and LLVM? The concurrency and parallelism? Debugging,
On 12/13/12 3:14 AM, Colin Adams wrote:
Presumably you are talking about companies who want to distribute programs
(a very small minority of companies, I would think)?
Not at all. In addition to Michael's own rebuttal, I'll add my own.
There are many companies which *fear* the L/GPL. The
On 12/13/12 9:30 AM, Herbert Valerio Riedel wrote:
Alfredo Di Napoli alfredo.dinap...@gmail.com writes:
Let me just chime in to give my 2 cents; I quote Micheal 100%; if we want
to push Haskell out of the academic/open source world to the real world,
well, GPL is not the way to go, due to its
36 matches
Mail list logo
