On Dec 18, 2007 8:54 PM, Manuel M T Chakravarty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Judah Jacobson: > > > > - Statically linking against GMP puts extra license requirements on > > any ghc-compiled program; thus, dynamic linking is preferable. > > Dynamic linking is preferable, because it is the simplest way to > comply with the LGLP (specifically, Section 4(d)) in a closed-source > program. However, it is incorrect to say that static linking leads to > extra license requirements. All that is required is to enable users > to use the program with a modified version of the GMP. There are two > simple ways of doing that: (a) provide access to the .o files of your > program so that they can statically link with a different version of > the GMP or (b) to provide a version of the program linking GMP > dynamically alongside the statically linked version. > > In any case, no change of the closed-source program's licence is > required.
Thanks for the correction and list of alternatives; both seem pretty reasonable. Either way, I guess you're "optimizing" for the casual user rather than for a hacker wanting to update GMP who won't be stopped by needing to statically link a bunch of .o files anyway. > > - On OS X, installing new frameworks is very easy (just drag-and-drop > > the framework into ~/Library/Frameworks or /Library/Frameworks; the > > former doesn't even need admin privileges). This doesn't seem like > > much to ask of users. > > I think it is. It means, Haskell programs are more hassle to install > than, say, C programs. That's fair, although I think it's still less hassle than, e.g., installing a Ruby program on OS X Panther (which required first installing the whole of Ruby itself). Best, -Judah _______________________________________________ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list [email protected] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
