Exactly. My post was an attempt to elicit response from anyone to whom it
matters. There is no point in worrying about hypothetical licensing problems -
let's hear about the real ones.
Regards,
Malcolm
On 7 May 2015, at 22:15, Tomas Carnecky wrote:
> That doesn't mean those people don't exist. Maybe they do but are too afraid
> to speak up (due to corporate policy or whatever).
>
> On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 10:41 PM, Malcolm Wallace <malcolm.wall...@me.com>
> wrote:
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> Haskell-Cafe mailing list
> haskell-c...@haskell.org
> http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
>
_______________________________________________
Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
