How does your company deal with the Integer type, whose standard implementation
in ghc is via the LGPL'd Gnu multi-precision routines?
Regards,
Malcolm
On 18 May, 2015,at 09:19 PM, 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
