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
_______________________________________________
Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
