Einar,
* "This product includes software developed by the OpenSSL Project
* for use in the OpenSSL Toolkit (http://www.openssl.org/)".
All developers would have to do is include the acknowledgment stated
above.
I think this is not bad for specific applications, but forcing this
upon all code compiled by GHC would be bad. I think the compiler
should not link applications by default to things that force
license related things.
I think this is one reason GMP is being replaced.
ps. personally I don't think the advertising clause is bad, but
I think it is bad to force it on other users.
You may be right. The licensing problem with GHC, as I understood
it, is summed up at <http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/ghc/wiki/
ReplacingGMPNotes>. LGPL is very restrictive.
As I have been working on separating BN out of the main OpenSSL
distribution, renaming symbols and generally reforming it into a
custom, stand-alone library for GHC I could take it one step further
and implement it from scratch as a GHC library. Implementing the BN
library from scratch may take some time but I will give it a shot and
see if I can't get better benchmarks. The downside is that I would
have more incentive to remove some Cryptography-based cruft, such as
BN_nnmod, BN_mod_add, BN_mod_sub and the BN-random routines, as these
are unnecessary for Prelude and GHC.
Best regards,
Peter
_______________________________________________
Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
