I imagine your ghc build uses gcc to invoke the system assembler and linker on your Linux servers, :-) and that's gplv3!
On Monday, May 18, 2015, Lars Kuhtz <hask...@kuhtz.eu> wrote: > I work for PivotCloud. We use Haskell/GHC in our production system on the > server side and on the client side. > > My experience is that any license that contains the string "GPL" can cause > problems in an corporate context, no matter if it actually is a legal issue > or not. > > Folks who are responsible for making decisions about legal implications of > the usage of third party software don't always have experience with open > source software. Also they are often not familiar with the technical > details of "derived work", different types of linking, or the subtleties of > distinguishing between build-, link-, and run-time dependencies in modern > software engineering pipelines. So, any mentioning of "LGPL" (or similar) > potentially causes overhead in the adaption. > > Regards, > Lars > > On 5/7/15 11:10 PM, Malcolm Wallace wrote: > >> Exactly. My post was an attempt to elicit response from anyone to whom >> it matters. There is no point in worrying about hypothetical licensing >> problems - let's hear about the real ones. >> >> Regards, >> Malcolm >> >> On 7 May 2015, at 22:15, Tomas Carnecky wrote: >> >> That doesn't mean those people don't exist. Maybe they do but are too >>> afraid to speak up (due to corporate policy or whatever). >>> >>> On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 10:41 PM, Malcolm Wallace <malcolm.wall...@me.com> >>> wrote: >>> I also note that in this discussion, so far not a single person has said >>> that the cpphs licence would actually be a problem for them. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Malcolm >>> >>> On 7 May 2015, at 20:54, Herbert Valerio Riedel wrote: >>> >>> On 2015-05-06 at 13:38:16 +0200, Jan Stolarek wrote: >>>> >>>> [...] >>>> >>>> Regarding licensing issues: perhaps we should simply ask Malcolm >>>>> Wallace if he would consider changing the license for the sake of GHC? >>>>> Or perhaps he could grant a custom-tailored license to the GHC >>>>> project? After all, the project page [1] says: " If that's a problem >>>>> for you, contact me to make other arrangements." >>>>> >>>> >>>> Fyi, Neil talked to him[1]: >>>> >>>> | I talked to Malcolm. His contention is that it doesn't actually change >>>> | the license of the ghc package. As such, it's just a single extra >>>> | license to add to a directory full of licenses, which is no big deal. >>>> >>>> >>>> [1]: >>>> http://www.reddit.com/r/haskell/comments/351pur/rfc_native_xcpp_for_ghc_proposal/cr1e5n3 >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Haskell-Cafe mailing list >>> haskell-c...@haskell.org >>> http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe >>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> ghc-devs mailing list >> ghc-devs@haskell.org >> http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs >> >> > _______________________________________________ > ghc-devs mailing list > ghc-devs@haskell.org > http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs >
_______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list ghc-devs@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
