On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 9:51 PM, Daniel Trstenjak < daniel.trsten...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 08:40:09PM +0200, Michael Snoyman wrote: > > If you have a commercial use for cpphs, and feel the terms of the (L)GPL > > are too onerous, you have the option of distributing unmodified binaries > > (only, not sources) under the terms of a different licence (see > > LICENCE-commercial). > > I think that depedencies to binaries, like cpphs, should be treated > differently than depedencies to libraries, because using a (L)GPL-ed > binary mostly hasn't any implications for a "commercial" user and > also for the output of a (L)GPL-ed binary usually the (L)GPL doesn't apply. > > _______________________________________________ > Haskell-Cafe mailing list > Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org > http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe > In the case of cpphs, there's no way to determine that we're using it as a library or an executable, since it's just listed in the build-depends. Michael
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
