Yitzchak Gale wrote:
Bulat Ziganshin wrote:
for me, GMP is much more problematic issue. strictly speaking, we
can't say that GHC is BSD-licensed because it includes LGPL-licensed
code (and that much worse, it includes this code in run-time libs)
Manuel M T Chakravarty wrote:
..binary distributions of GHC that include libgmp.a and statically
link it into compiled code... All
that is needed to make this legal is to (a)...
(b) give users access to another version of
the proprietary program that links GMP dynamically.
Wow, I didn't realize that. Now I understand Bulat. In a
project of any serious size and complexity, the use
of static or dynamic linking is often architechted in and
cannot be changed.
(b) is a sufficient condition, but not necessary; there are other ways
to satisfy the license. It's also possible to just distribute, for
example, the .o file(s) and a way to link them with a GMP to get the
final result; this doesn't even reveal your source-code any more than
your program being dynamically linked, at least if you do it right -- right?
~Isaac
_______________________________________________
Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
