There's an article on slashdot about a developper that has a dilemna
with his BSD-licenced work, I thought that might be relevant to this
thread :
http://ask.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/10/05/1317252
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Magnus Therning wrote:
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 6:03 PM, Simon Marlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[..]
Dynamic linking doesn't solve all the problems, we still have the problem
that GHC does a lot of cross-module inlining, regardless of whether dynamic
linking is used. However, I really would like
On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 12:59 PM, Simon Marlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Magnus Therning wrote:
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 6:03 PM, Simon Marlow [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
[..]
Dynamic linking doesn't solve all the problems, we still have the problem
that GHC does a lot of cross-module inlining,
Magnus Therning wrote:
On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 12:59 PM, Simon Marlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Magnus Therning wrote:
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 6:03 PM, Simon Marlow [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
[..]
Dynamic linking doesn't solve all the problems, we still have the problem
that GHC does a lot of
Hi
Gour wrote:
Don == Don Stewart [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Don * Only a small percent of Haskell libarires are LGPL, and
Don nothing for which we don't have workarounds (e.g. HDBC vs
Don galois-sqlite3 vs takusen).
Hmm, Gtk2Hs wxhaskell - major GUI libs...
wxHaskell uses a
| Unless you use a different compiler.
|
| Malcolm keeping the dream of multiple implementations alive
|
| And keep dividing our compiler teams' efforts, while
| single-implementation languages conquer :)
|
| Don thinking that compiler developer fragmentation doesn't help now the
Hello Don,
Thursday, October 2, 2008, 12:07:47 PM, you wrote:
Don, I usually agree with almost everything you say -- but not this!
and i usually answer only in those few cases when i disagree ;)
My point was really that investing the effort required to get nhc98 into
the shape that we could
On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 21:54:34 -0400, Stefan Monnier
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
I am not allowed to use such an interpretation. The (expensive and very
carefully researched) legal advice used to shape the use of Open Source
code at my employer has resulted in a no LGPL under any circumstances
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 4:00 PM, Don Stewart [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And keep dividing our compiler teams' efforts, while
single-implementation languages conquer :)
Seems like Haskell has a pretty clear story about which is the right
implementation for general purpose use. I don't see a
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 3:12 AM, Jeremy O'Donoghue
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 21:54:34 -0400, Stefan Monnier
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
I am not allowed to use such an interpretation. The (expensive and very
carefully researched) legal advice used to shape the use of Open
2008/10/2 Darrin Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 4:00 PM, Don Stewart [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And keep dividing our compiler teams' efforts, while
single-implementation languages conquer :)
Seems like Haskell has a pretty clear story about which is the right
The GPL and LGPL are needlessly difficult for mere
mortals to understand in their entirety, and as you've alluded to,
many lawyers would interpret it differently. I suspect many different
judges would too.
I think the evidence is rather to the contrary. Most lawsuits involving
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 6:03 PM, Simon Marlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[..]
Dynamic linking doesn't solve all the problems, we still have the problem
that GHC does a lot of cross-module inlining, regardless of whether dynamic
linking is used. However, I really would like to have a way to have
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 3:31 AM, brian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[..]
as big a problem as I imagined. My understanding is that I can satisfy
the requirements of the LGPL by dynamically linking, and that's
already happening. Is there something else to worry about? I'd be in
violation if I shipped
brian wrote:
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 8:54 PM, Stefan Monnier
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That still leaves anyone free to use LGPL if they want to, but please
don't assume that it allows commercial use by all potential users.
It *does* allow commercial use. Your example just shows that some
magnus:
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 3:31 AM, brian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[..]
as big a problem as I imagined. My understanding is that I can satisfy
the requirements of the LGPL by dynamically linking, and that's
already happening. Is there something else to worry about? I'd be in
Just a small nuance to what Don wrote:
* Haskell libraries are always statically linked and agressively
inlined,
But only for GHC (and jhc?).
so opinion seems to be that LGPL licensed *Haskell
libaries* are unsuitable for any projects you want to ship
Don == Don Stewart [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Don * Only a small percent of Haskell libarires are LGPL, and
Don nothing for which we don't have workarounds (e.g. HDBC vs
Don galois-sqlite3 vs takusen).
Hmm, Gtk2Hs wxhaskell - major GUI libs...
Sincerely,
Gour
--
Gour | Zagreb, Croatia
malcolm.wallace:
Just a small nuance to what Don wrote:
* Haskell libraries are always statically linked and agressively
inlined,
But only for GHC (and jhc?).
so opinion seems to be that LGPL licensed *Haskell
libaries* are unsuitable for any projects you want
Don thinking that compiler developer fragmentation doesn't help now the language
research is 'done'
Language researchers should move to a new language?
Tom
--
Tom Schrijvers
Department of Computer Science
K.U. Leuven
Celestijnenlaan 200A
B-3001 Heverlee
Belgium
tel: +32 16 327544
On Wed, 1 Oct 2008, Don Stewart wrote:
malcolm.wallace:
Just a small nuance to what Don wrote:
so opinion seems to be that LGPL licensed *Haskell
libaries* are unsuitable for any projects you want to ship
commercially, without source code.
Unless you use a
I am not allowed to use such an interpretation. The (expensive and very
carefully researched) legal advice used to shape the use of Open Source
code at my employer has resulted in a no LGPL under any circumstances
whatsoever policy.
[...]
That still leaves anyone free to use LGPL if they want
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 8:54 PM, Stefan Monnier
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That still leaves anyone free to use LGPL if they want to, but please
don't assume that it allows commercial use by all potential users.
It *does* allow commercial use. Your example just shows that some
people may
brianchina60221:
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 8:54 PM, Stefan Monnier
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That still leaves anyone free to use LGPL if they want to, but please
don't assume that it allows commercial use by all potential users.
It *does* allow commercial use. Your example just shows that
On Sat, Sep 27, 2008 at 4:59 PM, Simon Marlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[..]
That would be serious indeed, but before changing my ways I'd need more
information to back up your statement. Could someone confirm that code
from one installed module can be inlined into another?
When optimisation
Magnus Therning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Sep 27, 2008 at 4:59 PM, Simon Marlow
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [..]
That would be serious indeed, but before changing my ways I'd need
more information to back up your statement. Could someone confirm
that code from one installed module
Magnus Therning wrote:
Wolfgang Jeltsch wrote:
Am Freitag, 26. September 2008 09:24 schrieb Magnus Therning:
Recently I received an email with a question regarding the licensing
of a module I've written and uploaded to Hackage. I released it under
LGPL. The sender wondered if I would
On 2008 Sep 27, at 11:59, Simon Marlow wrote:
Magnus Therning wrote:
Wolfgang Jeltsch wrote:
Am Freitag, 26. September 2008 09:24 schrieb Magnus Therning:
Recently I received an email with a question regarding the
licensing
of a module I've written and uploaded to Hackage. I released it
Magnus Therning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I released it under
LGPL. The sender wondered if I would consider re-licensing the code
under BSD (or something similar) that would remove the need for users
to provide linkable object files so that users can re-link programs
against newer/modified
On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 8:59 AM, Achim Schneider [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[..]
Concerning Haskell, just tell them to use the ghc-lib and link (or even
compile) at runtime.
ghc-lib, never heard of it, where can I find out more?
/M
--
Magnus Therning(OpenPGP:
Thomas Davie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've seen this cause problems even in environments where there's no
commercial gain to be had. Take for example the zfs file system.
Sun have been kind enough to completely open source it.
Unfortunately, linux users can never hope for stable version
Magnus Therning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 8:59 AM, Achim Schneider [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote: [..]
Concerning Haskell, just tell them to use the ghc-lib and link (or
even compile) at runtime.
ghc-lib, never heard of it, where can I find out more?
Thomas Davie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That's my 2p's worth on why I use the BSD license over the GPL. In
short, the GPL does not promote freedom, it promotes restrictions,
just not the restrictions we've grown to hate from most companies.
Btw: The BSD license is GPL-compatible, it's the
On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 9:32 AM, Achim Schneider [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Magnus Therning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 8:59 AM, Achim Schneider [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote: [..]
Concerning Haskell, just tell them to use the ghc-lib and link (or
even compile) at runtime.
Manlio Perillo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Colin Paul Adams ha scritto:
Thomas == Thomas Davie [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Thomas Sorry, this isn't the most relevant comment to the
Thomas discussion, but I thought I'd add my own thought re the
Thomas gpl/lgpl. My personal
When I compare GPL and MIT/BSD licenses, I do a simple reasoning.
Suppose a doctor in a battle field meet a badly injuried enemy.
Should he help the enemy?
My answer would be that he indeed should, at the condition that the
patient will switch side. Oh wait, that's just what the GPL says.
Magnus Therning wrote:
I've heard that the OCaml crowd uses a modified LGPL with a static
linking exception. Unfortunately I've also heard that their addition
to LGPL hasn't gotten much review by lawyers, I'd much rather use
something that feels less ad hoc, if you get what I mean.
Any
Op vrijdag 26-09-2008 om 11:45 uur [tijdzone -0400], schreef Stefan
Monnier:
When I compare GPL and MIT/BSD licenses, I do a simple reasoning.
Suppose a doctor in a battle field meet a badly injuried enemy.
Should he help the enemy?
My answer would be that he indeed should, at the
Wolfgang Jeltsch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Am Freitag, 26. September 2008 09:24 schrieb Magnus Therning:
Now I have fairly strong feelings about freedom of code and I
everything I release is either under GPL or LGPL.
Ah, the RMS prevarication. ;-) Honestly, copyleft gives the user
*less*
On Fri, 2008-09-26 at 13:01 -0300, Marco Túlio Gontijo e Silva wrote:
Op vrijdag 26-09-2008 om 11:45 uur [tijdzone -0400], schreef Stefan
Monnier:
When I compare GPL and MIT/BSD licenses, I do a simple reasoning.
Suppose a doctor in a battle field meet a badly injuried enemy.
Should he
Jonathan Cast [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 2008-09-26 at 13:01 -0300, Marco Túlio Gontijo e Silva wrote:
Op vrijdag 26-09-2008 om 11:45 uur [tijdzone -0400], schreef Stefan
Monnier:
When I compare GPL and MIT/BSD licenses, I do a simple
reasoning. Suppose a doctor in a battle
On Fri, 2008-09-26 at 18:26 +0200, Achim Schneider wrote:
Jonathan Cast [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 2008-09-26 at 13:01 -0300, Marco Túlio Gontijo e Silva wrote:
Op vrijdag 26-09-2008 om 11:45 uur [tijdzone -0400], schreef Stefan
Monnier:
When I compare GPL and MIT/BSD
Jonathan Cast [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 2008-09-26 at 18:26 +0200, Achim Schneider wrote:
Jonathan Cast [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 2008-09-26 at 13:01 -0300, Marco Túlio Gontijo e Silva
wrote:
Op vrijdag 26-09-2008 om 11:45 uur [tijdzone -0400], schreef
Stefan
On Fri, 2008-09-26 at 18:50 +0200, Achim Schneider wrote:
Jonathan Cast [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 2008-09-26 at 18:26 +0200, Achim Schneider wrote:
Jonathan Cast [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 2008-09-26 at 13:01 -0300, Marco Túlio Gontijo e Silva
wrote:
Op
Thomas Davie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 26 Sep 2008, at 17:51, Jonathan Cast wrote:
On Fri, 2008-09-26 at 12:17 +0200, Thomas Davie wrote:
On 26 Sep 2008, at 12:12, Janis Voigtlaender wrote:
Manlio Perillo wrote:
When I compare GPL and MIT/BSD licenses, I do a simple reasoning.
On Fri, 2008-09-26 at 09:48 -0700, Jonathan Cast wrote:
On Fri, 2008-09-26 at 18:50 +0200, Achim Schneider wrote:
Jonathan Cast [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 2008-09-26 at 18:26 +0200, Achim Schneider wrote:
Jonathan Cast [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 2008-09-26 at
46 matches
Mail list logo
