On Wednesday 25 February 2009 07:47:16 am Wolfgang Jeltsch wrote: > Am Mittwoch, 25. Februar 2009 14:33 schrieb Duncan 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. > > I’m not sure whether this would be enough. .a and .o files are not > compatible among GHC versions, as far as I know. Relinking against newer > Gtk2Hs versions might not work. And a program using Gtk2Hs contains code > from the .hi files of Gtk2Hs through inlining. So it’s not pure linking. > However, the LGPL only allows linking, as far as I understand. > > I want to repeat what I’ve said earlier on this list: For Haskell, there is > no real difference between LGPL and GPL, as far as I understand it. If you > don’t want to force the users of your library to use an open source license > for their work then use BSD3 or a similar license for your library. > > Best wishes, > Wolfgang
Alternatively Haskell could add shared library support, like every other language. Regards, -- Conrad Meyer <[email protected]> _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list [email protected] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
