>>>>> "Wolfgang" == Wolfgang Jeltsch <[email protected]> writes:
Wolfgang> Am Mittwoch, 25. Februar 2009 14:33 schrieb Duncan
Wolfgang> Coutts:
>> Note that some people will tell you that by a strict
>> interpretation of the LGPL that statically linked Haskell libs
>> under that license are a pain in the backside. When we decided
>> on that license for gtk2hs that was not our intention. In other
>> words nobody is going to sue you if you statically link gtk2hs
>> libs. Of course if you need a cast iron legal guarantee then
>> that's not good enough and you'd have to ship .a and .o files
>> to let users relink if they wanted to.
Wolfgang> I’m not sure whether this would be enough. .a and .o
Wolfgang> files are not compatible among GHC versions, as far as I
Wolfgang> know. Relinking against newer Gtk2Hs versions might not
Wolfgang> work. And a program using Gtk2Hs contains code from the
Wolfgang> .hi files of Gtk2Hs through inlining. So it’s not pure
Wolfgang> linking. However, the LGPL only allows linking, as far
Wolfgang> as I understand.
Wolfgang> I want to repeat what I’ve said earlier on this list:
Wolfgang> For Haskell, there is no real difference between LGPL
Wolfgang> and GPL, as far as I understand it. If you don’t want to
Wolfgang> force the users of your library to use an open source
Wolfgang> license for their work then use BSD3 or a similar
Wolfgang> license for your library.
But IF there is no difference between LGPL and GPL for Haskell
programs, then the licensing of gtk2hs as LGPL is just a smokescreen -
it is effectively GPL, so you have to license your program as GPL.
Which I'm all in favour of :-)
--
Colin Adams
Preston Lancashire
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
