On Tuesday 27 March 2007 17:34, Malcolm Wallace wrote: > The library package is LGPL. > The executable that uses the library is GPL.
Ah, OK... > Really? The FSF makes it quite clear that the advertising-clause-free > BSD licence is compatible with the GPL. They also make it clear that > merely distributing things together in the same unit is perfectly fine, > and in no way causes licence cross-pollution. But I understand that > some people might not know this, and with 3rd-party licence > proliferation, it can be difficult to keep track of the allowable > combinations. Well, after reading some of the GNU pages, it seems that I have confused the original BSD license (which is *not* compatible) and the modified one (which we use and which *is* compatible). Sorry... > AIUI, the main reason for including cpphs with Hugs is that it is common > for a binary distribution of Hugs to be used on a platform (Windows) > with no C compiler available. Hmmm, I still fail to see why we should ship e.g. cpphs or hsc2hs with any Haskell implementation, but not Alex/Happy/Haddock/... What is so special about the former ones? Let's keep things separate, even if this means that our source distros are a bit larger than they have to be if every tool was installed. Cheers, S. _______________________________________________ Cvs-ghc mailing list [email protected] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-ghc
