Indeed. This is also how we use gcc and the llvm tooling. If we want the cpp tooling to be available as a library, that's a whole nother set of needs.
Gmp lgpl I can brush under the rug at work because there's the various integer simple options, this gets a bit more squirrelly otherwise. Maybe it'd be simpler for two people to sit down for a weekend, one only narrating the cpphs code, the other only listening and paraphrasing it into a new program. Copyright on text only covers literal copying. Nontrivial rephrasing of everything plus some rejiggering of non local structure is not prevented by copyright law, and I doubt there are any patents in play. On Friday, May 8, 2015, Mathieu Boespflug <mb...@tweag.net> wrote: > [Gah, wrong From: email address given the list subscriptions, sorry > for the duplicates.] > > I'm unclear why cpphs needs to be made a dependency of the GHC API and > included as a lib. Could you elaborate? (in the wiki page possibly) > > Currently, GHC uses the system preprocessor, as a separate process. > Couldn't we for GHC 7.12 keep to exactly that, save for the fact that > by default GHC would call the cpphs binary for preprocessing, and have > the cpphs binary be available in GHC's install dir somewhere? > > fork()/execvce() is cheap. Certainly cheaper than the cost of > compiling a single Haskell module. Can't we keep to this > separate-(and-pluggable)-preprocessor-executable scheme? We'd sidestep > most license tainting concerns that way. > > > On 8 May 2015 at 11:39, Herbert Valerio Riedel <hvrie...@gmail.com > <javascript:;>> wrote: > > Hello, > > > > On 2015-05-08 at 11:28:08 +0200, Niklas Larsson wrote: > >> If the intention is to use cpphs as a library, won't the license > >> affect every program built with the GHC API? That seems to be a high > >> price to pay. > > > > Yes, every program linking the `ghc` package would be affected by > > LGPL+SLE albeit in a contained way, as it's mentioned on the Wiki page: > > > > | - As a practical consequence of the //LGPL with > static-linking-exception// > > | (LGPL+SLE), **if no modifications are made to the `cpphs`-parts** > > | (i.e. the LGPL+SLE covered modules) of the GHC code-base, > > | **then there is no requirement to ship (or make available) any > source code** > > | together with the binaries, even if other parts of the GHC code-base > > | were modified. > > > > However, don't forget we already have this issue w/ integer-gmp, and > > with that the LGPL is in full effect (i.e. w/o a > static-linkage-exception!) > > > > In that context, the suggestion was made[1] to handle the cpphs-code > > like the GMP code, i.e. allow a compile-time configuration in the GHC > > build-system to build a cpphs-free (and/or GMP-free) GHC for those > > parties that need to avoid any LGPL-ish code whatsoever in their > > toolchain. > > > > Would that address this concern? > > > > > > [1]: > http://www.reddit.com/r/haskell/comments/351pur/rfc_native_xcpp_for_ghc_proposal/cr1cdhb > > _______________________________________________ > > Haskell-Cafe mailing list > > haskell-c...@haskell.org <javascript:;> > > http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe > _______________________________________________ > ghc-devs mailing list > ghc-d...@haskell.org <javascript:;> > http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs >
_______________________________________________ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
