R Hayes:
On Feb 12, 2008, at 8:50 PM, Manuel M T Chakravarty wrote:
* Whether you link statically or dynamically against a GPL'ed
library does not make any difference as far as your legal
obligations are concerned. (This opinion is supported, eg, by the
following item in the FSF's licensing FAQ: <http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLPluginsInNF
>.)
This statement is something that the FSF would *like* to be true.
It is not clear that it *is* true. In particular, if you
dynamically link with a GPL library but NEVER distribute that
library, you may not be obligated under the GPL. The issue arises
from the fact that the GPL gains its teeth when you distribute GPL
code, not when you use it. The advice I have received is that this
is a gray area where the FSF would have to work exceptionally hard
to win a suit.
Yes, that makes sense. Besides, we are not trying to get around the
FSFs intention by linking non-free code with GPL code - GHC is
perfectly fine free software according to the FSFs own definition <http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
>. So, they probably couldn't care less.
Manuel
_______________________________________________
Cvs-ghc mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-ghc
