Re: [Haskell-cafe] (L)GPL libraries & Haskell/GHC
Strictly speaking this is correct, and probably there's no one who would miss the gotcha on the list, but for the sake of completeness: You can release the source only to people who you have provided the program, but *they* have the ability to redistribute it under the terms of the GPL. As discussed elsewhere, this seems to be a difference between the LGPL and GPL, when dealing with Haskell libraries. When using the LGPL, you must allow people to update the library, so must (in the absence of dynamic linking) provide the source, but you *may* prohibit redistribution of that source. (IANAL...) On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 5:11 AM, Joachim Breitner wrote: > > Also, if you want to sell the resulting program, you do not have to > publish the source publicly, as long as you offer the source to your > customers. ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Re: [Haskell-cafe] (L)GPL libraries & Haskell/GHC
Hi, Am Mittwoch, den 12.12.2012, 02:50 +0100 schrieb Jonathan Fischer Friberg: > On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 2:26 AM, Ramana Kumar > wrote: > Using the GPL (or a strong copyleft free license) strengthens > the free software community of which I thought the Haskell > community is a part (or at least intersects substantially). > > I don't think it strengthens the community. If someone wants to make a > change a library, > but not release the source, they cannot do that with GPL. this is not fully correct. Correct would be to say: „If someone wants to make a change a library and distribute the resulting programs without also sharing the source with the recipient, they cannot do that with GPL.” So it is fully acceptable under the GPL to change the library for your own use, without sharing your code with anyone else. If you create a web service based on the modified library, you do not have to share the code (unless it is AGPL, but that is a different license). Also, if you want to sell the resulting program, you do not have to publish the source publicly, as long as you offer the source to your customers. For LGPL, we can assume that all this holds; whether the additional relaxation that LGPL provides over GPL apply to Haskell libraries seems to be doubtful. I hope that clarifies the situation a bit, Joachim -- Joachim "nomeata" Breitner m...@joachim-breitner.de | nome...@debian.org | GPG: 0x4743206C xmpp: nome...@joachim-breitner.de | http://www.joachim-breitner.de/ signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Re: [Haskell-cafe] (L)GPL libraries & Haskell/GHC (was: Re: ANNOUNCE: tie-knot library)
I asked that on SO: http://programmers.stackexchange.com/q/179084/61231 So far the best answer is wxWidget's license (LGPL + linking exception) which at least has been approved by OSI (although FSF approval would have been better). Best regards, Petr 2012/12/12 Ivan Lazar Miljenovic > On 12 December 2012 12:57, Nicolas Trangez wrote: > > Note: IANAL > > > > On Tue, 2012-12-11 at 17:45 -0800, David Thomas wrote: > >> On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 5:35 PM, Brandon Allbery >wrote: > >> > >> > (Oddly enough, GPL is not the only open source license.) > >> > >> There was no implication to the contrary. It was stated that BSD is a > >> *weaker* license - this is true in the sense that it has fewer > requirements > >> (in particular, no copyleft) - and that "strong copyleft" licenses such > as > >> the GPL should be preferred as they do more to bolster the free software > >> community. You can disagree with this claim (there are arguments both > ways > >> - delving into them is not my point here) but please try not to bring in > >> straw men. > > > > Actually the library is made available under the LGPL-3 license, > > according to its README, not the GPL (although the latter is implicit, > > of course). > > > > In the Haskell world this does have a different effect compared to when > > one uses the LGPL for, say, a C library though, since (at least for now) > > GHC uses/defaults to static linking, which IIRC (though IANAL) turns the > > LGPL into GPL, so this has a severe impact for application authors. This > > might be something people aren't aware of when releasing Haskell > > libraries using the LGPL. > > > > I tend to use the LGPL myself for most library-style projects, and do so > > as well for Haskell code (although I'm aware of the drawbacks), but I'm > > perfectly fine with people linking the libs statically as long as they > > comply to the license "as if they were using dynamic loading". > > > > If anyone knows some standard license which boils down to "obligations > > like LGPL but OK for static linking as well", please let me know. > > I too would like such a license; however, the closest I've seen is > LGPL + linking exception (which I believe is the license Malcolm > Wallace uses for the cpphs library, though not the executable). > > > > > Nicolas > > > > > > ___ > > Haskell-Cafe mailing list > > Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org > > http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe > > > > -- > Ivan Lazar Miljenovic > ivan.miljeno...@gmail.com > http://IvanMiljenovic.wordpress.com > > ___ > Haskell-Cafe mailing list > Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org > http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe > ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Re: [Haskell-cafe] (L)GPL libraries & Haskell/GHC (was: Re: ANNOUNCE: tie-knot library)
On 12 December 2012 12:57, Nicolas Trangez wrote: > Note: IANAL > > On Tue, 2012-12-11 at 17:45 -0800, David Thomas wrote: >> On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 5:35 PM, Brandon Allbery wrote: >> >> > (Oddly enough, GPL is not the only open source license.) >> >> There was no implication to the contrary. It was stated that BSD is a >> *weaker* license - this is true in the sense that it has fewer requirements >> (in particular, no copyleft) - and that "strong copyleft" licenses such as >> the GPL should be preferred as they do more to bolster the free software >> community. You can disagree with this claim (there are arguments both ways >> - delving into them is not my point here) but please try not to bring in >> straw men. > > Actually the library is made available under the LGPL-3 license, > according to its README, not the GPL (although the latter is implicit, > of course). > > In the Haskell world this does have a different effect compared to when > one uses the LGPL for, say, a C library though, since (at least for now) > GHC uses/defaults to static linking, which IIRC (though IANAL) turns the > LGPL into GPL, so this has a severe impact for application authors. This > might be something people aren't aware of when releasing Haskell > libraries using the LGPL. > > I tend to use the LGPL myself for most library-style projects, and do so > as well for Haskell code (although I'm aware of the drawbacks), but I'm > perfectly fine with people linking the libs statically as long as they > comply to the license "as if they were using dynamic loading". > > If anyone knows some standard license which boils down to "obligations > like LGPL but OK for static linking as well", please let me know. I too would like such a license; however, the closest I've seen is LGPL + linking exception (which I believe is the license Malcolm Wallace uses for the cpphs library, though not the executable). > > Nicolas > > > ___ > Haskell-Cafe mailing list > Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org > http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe -- Ivan Lazar Miljenovic ivan.miljeno...@gmail.com http://IvanMiljenovic.wordpress.com ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
[Haskell-cafe] (L)GPL libraries & Haskell/GHC (was: Re: ANNOUNCE: tie-knot library)
Note: IANAL On Tue, 2012-12-11 at 17:45 -0800, David Thomas wrote: > On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 5:35 PM, Brandon Allbery wrote: > > > (Oddly enough, GPL is not the only open source license.) > > There was no implication to the contrary. It was stated that BSD is a > *weaker* license - this is true in the sense that it has fewer requirements > (in particular, no copyleft) - and that "strong copyleft" licenses such as > the GPL should be preferred as they do more to bolster the free software > community. You can disagree with this claim (there are arguments both ways > - delving into them is not my point here) but please try not to bring in > straw men. Actually the library is made available under the LGPL-3 license, according to its README, not the GPL (although the latter is implicit, of course). In the Haskell world this does have a different effect compared to when one uses the LGPL for, say, a C library though, since (at least for now) GHC uses/defaults to static linking, which IIRC (though IANAL) turns the LGPL into GPL, so this has a severe impact for application authors. This might be something people aren't aware of when releasing Haskell libraries using the LGPL. I tend to use the LGPL myself for most library-style projects, and do so as well for Haskell code (although I'm aware of the drawbacks), but I'm perfectly fine with people linking the libs statically as long as they comply to the license "as if they were using dynamic loading". If anyone knows some standard license which boils down to "obligations like LGPL but OK for static linking as well", please let me know. Nicolas ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
