On 06 January 2005 12:20, Ketil Malde wrote:
> "Simon Marlow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> There are already a couple of bits of (L)GPL under fptools: GMP and
>> readline. GMP we'd like to replace because it is necessarily a part
>> of every compiled Haskell program; readline isn't so import
"Simon Marlow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> There are already a couple of bits of (L)GPL under fptools: GMP and
> readline. GMP we'd like to replace because it is necessarily a part of
> every compiled Haskell program; readline isn't so important but it would
> be nice to have a BSD-licensed rep
On 30 December 2004 05:25, Philippa Cowderoy wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Dec 2004, John Goerzen wrote:
>
>> But like I've said, I am willing to negotiate with people that
>> require code under a license that lets them use it without releasing
>> the code. I have also stated that I will put any part of th
On Thu, Dec 30, 2004 at 04:38:01AM +, Mark Carroll wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Dec 2004, John Goerzen wrote:
> (snip)
> > I accept patches for things like this for MissingH. You can send me
> > code or diffs as you prefer. I've been accepting code licensed under
> > GPL, LGPL, or BSD, and will need a
On Thu, Dec 30, 2004 at 05:24:38AM +, Philippa Cowderoy wrote:
> This is the bit I was worried about, the idea of GPLed library code in
> fptools disturbs me somewhat.
I don't think anyone is suggesting doing that. I'm not, anyway. I
don't think the fptools maintainers would accept it if I
On Wed, 29 Dec 2004, John Goerzen wrote:
But like I've said, I am willing to negotiate with people that require
code under a license that lets them use it without releasing the code.
I have also stated that I will put any part of the code I've written
under the fptools license if that code will be
On Wed, 29 Dec 2004, John Goerzen wrote:
(snip)
> I accept patches for things like this for MissingH. You can send me
> code or diffs as you prefer. I've been accepting code licensed under
> GPL, LGPL, or BSD, and will need a statement such as:
(snip)
Can you mix in BSD code with GPL, though, wi
On Thu, Dec 30, 2004 at 12:02:58AM +, Philippa Cowderoy wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Dec 2004, John Goerzen wrote:
>
> >In which case, it will fall under the default (GPL) license of the
> >library (and may later be given to fptools to be part of the "standard"
> >library).
> >
>
> I would've thought
On Wed, 29 Dec 2004, John Goerzen wrote:
In which case, it will fall under the default (GPL) license of the
library (and may later be given to fptools to be part of the "standard"
library).
I would've thought the GPL was incompatible with being part of a standard
library intended for use in potent
