Interesting. I'm not completely clear, when you say that your company distributes binaries to third-parties: do you distribute ghc itself? Or just the product that has been built by ghc?
Regards, Malcolm On 21 May 2015, at 10:16, Yitzchak Gale wrote: > LGPL is well-known and non-acceptable here. > > Show me some serious case law for Malcolm's > customized LGPL and we can start talking. > Other than that, explanations are not going to > be helpful. > > Thanks, > Yitz > > > On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 4:51 AM, Howard B. Golden > <howard_b_gol...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> Hi Yitzchak, >> >> I believe there are good explanations of open source licenses aimed at >> lawyers and management. I don't think their fears are well-founded. If you >> work for a timid company that isn't willing to learn, you should consider >> going elsewhere. You may be happier in the long run. >> >> Respectfully, >> >> Howard >> >>> On May 20, 2015, at 7:39 AM, Yitzchak Gale <g...@sefer.org> wrote: >>> >>> The license issue is a real concern for any company using >>> GHC to develop a product whose binaries they distribute to >>> customers. And it is concern for GHC itself, if we want >>> GHC to continue to be viewed as a candidate for use in >>> industry. >>> >>> The real issue is not whether you can explain why this >>> license is OK, or whether anyone is actually going to the >>> trouble of building GHC without GMP. >>> >>> The issue is the risk of a *potential* legal issue and its >>> potential disastrous cost as *perceived* by lawyers and >>> management. A potential future engineering cost, no >>> matter how large and even if only marginally practical, >>> is perceived as manageable and controllable, whereas a >>> poorly understood potential future legal threat is perceived >>> as an existential risk to the entire company. >>> >>> With GMP, we do have an engineering workaround to side-step >>> the legal problem entirely if needed. Whereas if cpphs were >>> to be linked into GHC with its current license, I would be >>> ethically obligated to report it to my superiors, and the >>> response might very well be: Then never mind, let's do the >>> simple and safe thing and just rewrite all of our applications in >>> Java or C#. >>> >>> Keeping the license as is seems to be important to Malcolm. >>> So could we have an option to build GHC without cpphs >>> and instead use it as a stand-alone external program? >>> That would make the situation no worse than GMP. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Yitz >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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