On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 10:14 AM, Colin Adams <[email protected]>wrote:
> On 13 December 2012 08:09, Michael Snoyman <[email protected]> wrote: > >> To take this out of the academic realm and into the real-life realm: I've >> actually done projects for companies which have corporate policies >> disallowing the usage of any copyleft licenses in their toolset. My use >> case was a web application, which would not have been affected by a GPL >> library usage since we were not distributing binaries. Nonetheless, those >> clients would not have allowed usage of any such libraries. You can argue >> whether or not this is a good decision on their part, but I don't think the >> companies I interacted with were unique in this regard. >> >> So anyone who's considering selling Haskell-based services to companies >> could very well be in a situation where any (L)GPL libraries are >> non-starters, regardless of actual legal concerns. >> > > Presumably you are talking about companies who want to distribute programs > (a very small minority of companies, I would think)? > No, read my use case again. I was creating a web application for a company. The company was not going to distribute my code in any way to their clients. Nonetheless, the company had a corporate policy to not use *any* copyleft licenses, and therefore I was unable to use a library such as Pandoc. (I believe this policy affected me at two separate companies, but I don't remember all the details tbh.) I also don't think that distributing programs is as small a market as you think, and should also be something we support for commercial users of Haskell. Michael
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list [email protected] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
