Re: [Haskell-cafe] Re: Hmm, what license to use?
There's an article on slashdot about a developper that has a dilemna with his BSD-licenced work, I thought that might be relevant to this thread : http://ask.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/10/05/1317252 ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Re: [Haskell-cafe] Re: Hmm, what license to use?
Hi Gour wrote: > > "Don" == Don Stewart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Don> * Only a small percent of Haskell libarires are LGPL, and > Don> nothing for which we don't have workarounds (e.g. HDBC vs > Don> galois-sqlite3 vs takusen). > > Hmm, Gtk2Hs & wxhaskell - major GUI libs... wxHaskell uses a modified LGPL license (wxWidgets license). One that allows static linking. See http://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/WxHaskell/License . From the description of the wxWidgets license http://www.wxwidgets.org/about/newlicen.htm : "The wxWindows Licence is essentially the L-GPL (Library General Public Licence), with an exception stating that derived works in binary form may be distributed on the user's own terms. This is a solution that satisfies those who wish to produce GPL'ed software using wxWidgets, and also those producing proprietary software." Greetins, Mads Lindstrøm > > Sincerely, > Gour > > ___ > 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] Re: Hmm, what license to use?
On Fri, 2008-10-03 at 16:25 +0100, Magnus Therning wrote: > Ah, now I understand. The object for GHC would be to reduce the > system-wide use of memory rather than substitutability of DLLs then, > right? > > Why would it be interesting to have sharable objects without substitutability? Hello world and plugins you want to load into foreign programs would be a few k rather than a few hundred or a few thousand k. Being able to substitute is something that may be possible later, at least for some packages. Simon has been mulling over some of the possibilities here. One idea is if you specifically want to build a .so or .dll with a stable ABI then you could declare that's what you want to do, and then not do cross-module inlining by default (except for those functions marked INLINE) then you can guarantee you're not breaking ABI so long as you do not change the types of exported functions or the implementations of functions marked INLINE. Extending the ABI in a compatible way needs more thought about a suitable mechanism. Duncan ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
[Haskell-cafe] Re: Hmm, what license to use?
Magnus Therning wrote: On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 12:59 PM, Simon Marlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Magnus Therning wrote: On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 6:03 PM, Simon Marlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [..] Dynamic linking doesn't solve all the problems, we still have the problem that GHC does a lot of cross-module inlining, regardless of whether dynamic linking is used. However, I really would like to have a way to have complete control over what is exposed across a package boundary. We need this not just for licensing reasons, but also for making a dynamic library with a fixed ABI, so it can be upgraded later. I have a really hard time following this. Are you seriously saying that GHC is inlining code from modules _and_ link dynamically at the same time. That seems like a remarkably strange thing to do, or maybe I'm just missing something. That's exactly what would happen, if we shipped dynamic linking support with GHC as it stands. It's just a linking mechanism, an alternative to static linking, and has no impact on the amount or nature of inter-module optimisation that GHC does. Ah, now I understand. The object for GHC would be to reduce the system-wide use of memory rather than substitutability of DLLs then, right? Why would it be interesting to have sharable objects without substitutability? It'll make our binary distributions a lot smaller for one thing. Also, the on-disk size of binaries will be a lot smaller - this is something you notice if you run a GHC test suite, for example. Also, the GHCi binary contains the base package, but loads up another complete copy when it starts up. And if you load up the GHC package inside GHCi, then you have two complete copies of GHC in memory. Dynamic linking fixes all this. Cheers, Simon ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
[Haskell-cafe] Re: Hmm, what license to use?
On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 12:59 PM, Simon Marlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Magnus Therning wrote: >> >> On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 6:03 PM, Simon Marlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> wrote: >> [..] >>> >>> Dynamic linking doesn't solve all the problems, we still have the problem >>> that GHC does a lot of cross-module inlining, regardless of whether >>> dynamic >>> linking is used. However, I really would like to have a way to have >>> complete control over what is exposed across a package boundary. We need >>> this not just for licensing reasons, but also for making a dynamic >>> library >>> with a fixed ABI, so it can be upgraded later. >> >> I have a really hard time following this. Are you seriously saying >> that GHC is inlining code from modules _and_ link dynamically at the >> same time. That seems like a remarkably strange thing to do, or maybe >> I'm just missing something. > > That's exactly what would happen, if we shipped dynamic linking support with > GHC as it stands. It's just a linking mechanism, an alternative to static > linking, and has no impact on the amount or nature of inter-module > optimisation that GHC does. Ah, now I understand. The object for GHC would be to reduce the system-wide use of memory rather than substitutability of DLLs then, right? Why would it be interesting to have sharable objects without substitutability? /M -- Magnus Therning(OpenPGP: 0xAB4DFBA4) magnus＠therning．org Jabber: magnus＠therning．org http://therning.org/magnus identi.ca|twitter: magthe ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
[Haskell-cafe] Re: Hmm, what license to use?
Magnus Therning wrote:
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 6:03 PM, Simon Marlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[..]
Dynamic linking doesn't solve all the problems, we still have the problem
that GHC does a lot of cross-module inlining, regardless of whether dynamic
linking is used. However, I really would like to have a way to have
complete control over what is exposed across a package boundary. We need
this not just for licensing reasons, but also for making a dynamic library
with a fixed ABI, so it can be upgraded later.
I have a really hard time following this. Are you seriously saying
that GHC is inlining code from modules _and_ link dynamically at the
same time. That seems like a remarkably strange thing to do, or maybe
I'm just missing something.
That's exactly what would happen, if we shipped dynamic linking support
with GHC as it stands. It's just a linking mechanism, an alternative to
static linking, and has no impact on the amount or nature of
inter-module optimisation that GHC does.
My understanding from another thread on here was that dynamic linking
isn't working reliably, not even on Windows, where it once was
supported. It has never worked on any other platform.
The fundamental mechanisms are working on {x86, x86-64, PPC, PPC64} /
{Linux, OS X, Windows} and possibly other OSs. However right now you
need a few small patches to the source tree to get it to build. Most of
the unresolved issues are around how to construct binary installs, and
how executables will find their libraries when the run (e.g. if you
install GHC privately in your home directory).
Cheers,
Simon
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Re: [Haskell-cafe] Re: Hmm, what license to use?
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 6:03 PM, Simon Marlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [..] > Dynamic linking doesn't solve all the problems, we still have the problem > that GHC does a lot of cross-module inlining, regardless of whether dynamic > linking is used. However, I really would like to have a way to have > complete control over what is exposed across a package boundary. We need > this not just for licensing reasons, but also for making a dynamic library > with a fixed ABI, so it can be upgraded later. I have a really hard time following this. Are you seriously saying that GHC is inlining code from modules _and_ link dynamically at the same time. That seems like a remarkably strange thing to do, or maybe I'm just missing something. My understanding from another thread on here was that dynamic linking isn't working reliably, not even on Windows, where it once was supported. It has never worked on any other platform. Am I wrong about this? IIRC I've never seen GHC produce anything that's dynamically linked to _any_haskell module, and all modules I compile are always packaged up in .hi and .a files. Not a .so or .dll as far I can see. /M -- Magnus Therning(OpenPGP: 0xAB4DFBA4) magnus＠therning．org Jabber: magnus＠therning．org http://therning.org/magnus identi.ca|twitter: magthe ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Re: [Haskell-cafe] Re: Hmm, what license to use?
> The GPL and LGPL are needlessly difficult for mere > mortals to understand in their entirety, and as you've alluded to, > many lawyers would interpret it differently. I suspect many different > judges would too. I think the evidence is rather to the contrary. Most lawsuits involving the GPL are settled out of court, precisely because the lawyers for the violating party tend to realise they have no leg to stand on. Of those few cases which have made it to court, the judge has always decided in favour of the GPL. That is, the GPL is as solid a guarantee of code freedom as you could wish for. The lesson, from the point of view of an entity that wants to distribute non-free code but making use of some free code, is simply to play nicely with the community whose work you are using gratis. Keeping to the original authors' intent is ultimately cheaper than either writing your own replacement code, or paying lawyers to fight it out. In addition, if you want legal certainty , most GPL authors would probably be happy to assign you a separate non-exclusive commercial license, in return for a small payment or royalty agreement. Regards, Malcolm ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Re: [Haskell-cafe] Re: Hmm, what license to use?
2008/10/2 Darrin Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 4:00 PM, Don Stewart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> And keep dividing our compiler teams' efforts, while >> single-implementation languages conquer :) >> >> > Seems like Haskell has a pretty clear story about which is the right > implementation for general purpose use. I don't see a Scheme problem here. > Just make Haskell more difficult to implement than Scheme and you've preemptively avoided that problem :-) > > > -- > Darrin > > > ___ > 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] Re: Hmm, what license to use?
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 3:12 AM, Jeremy O'Donoghue < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 21:54:34 -0400, "Stefan Monnier" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > > > I am not allowed to use such an interpretation. The (expensive and very > > > carefully researched) legal advice used to shape the use of Open Source > > > code at my employer has resulted in a "no LGPL under any circumstances > > > whatsoever" policy. > > [...] > > > That still leaves anyone free to use LGPL if they want to, but please > > > don't assume that it allows commercial use by all potential users. > > > > It *does* allow commercial use. Your example just shows that some > > people may decide not to take advantage of it, based not on problematic > > restrictions but just on paranoia. > > The LGPL does not state that a "work that uses the library" may be > distributed > in conjunction with a closed source commercial program, although I grant > that > many (presumably including some who have actually consulted lawyers) > believe > that such an interpretation is reasonable. I believe the LGPL states that mere aggregation doesn't indicate derivative works. In fact commercial video games have been distributed for linux that used the SDL library that I used to work with myself in a former life. So I think we should all speak to our lawyers before assuming how it can be used. The GPL and LGPL are needlessly difficult for mere mortals to understand in their entirety, and as you've alluded to, many lawyers would interpret it differently. I suspect many different judges would too. > > > However, the policy in place in my workplace was designed by lawyers > familiar > with contract law in multiple jurisdictions worldwide. I may not > personally > agree with their conclusions in every respect, but I'd be hard pressed > to > consider them "paranoid" - they are simply doing their job, and have > concluded > that the potential risk of a court somewhere in the World taking an > aggressive > view of the provisions of clause 5 is unacceptable. > > I guess what I really mean is that if you choose LGPL as a license, some > people > who would like to use it in commercial products will do so, but others > (who would > have chosen to use the work if differently licensed) will not. Not a > question of > paranoia so much as corporate appetite for license risk. Yes, there's enough anti-GPL or GPL derived momentum in many places that I must say that using the LGPL or GPL would be highly frowned upon at my workplace as well. That said, I'm a huge fan of apache, BSD, MIT and Perl's licenses :-) > > > Regards > Jeremy > -- > Jeremy O'Donoghue > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > ___ > 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] Re: Hmm, what license to use?
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 4:00 PM, Don Stewart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > And keep dividing our compiler teams' efforts, while > single-implementation languages conquer :) > > Seems like Haskell has a pretty clear story about which is the right implementation for general purpose use. I don't see a Scheme problem here. -- Darrin ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Re: [Haskell-cafe] Re: Hmm, what license to use?
On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 21:54:34 -0400, "Stefan Monnier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > > I am not allowed to use such an interpretation. The (expensive and very > > carefully researched) legal advice used to shape the use of Open Source > > code at my employer has resulted in a "no LGPL under any circumstances > > whatsoever" policy. > [...] > > That still leaves anyone free to use LGPL if they want to, but please > > don't assume that it allows commercial use by all potential users. > > It *does* allow commercial use. Your example just shows that some > people may decide not to take advantage of it, based not on problematic > restrictions but just on paranoia. The LGPL does not state that a "work that uses the library" may be distributed in conjunction with a closed source commercial program, although I grant that many (presumably including some who have actually consulted lawyers) believe that such an interpretation is reasonable. However, the policy in place in my workplace was designed by lawyers familiar with contract law in multiple jurisdictions worldwide. I may not personally agree with their conclusions in every respect, but I'd be hard pressed to consider them "paranoid" - they are simply doing their job, and have concluded that the potential risk of a court somewhere in the World taking an aggressive view of the provisions of clause 5 is unacceptable. I guess what I really mean is that if you choose LGPL as a license, some people who would like to use it in commercial products will do so, but others (who would have chosen to use the work if differently licensed) will not. Not a question of paranoia so much as corporate appetite for license risk. Regards Jeremy -- Jeremy O'Donoghue [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Re[2]: [Haskell-cafe] Re: Hmm, what license to use?
Hello Don, Thursday, October 2, 2008, 12:07:47 PM, you wrote: >> Don, I usually agree with almost everything you say -- but not this! and i usually answer only in those few cases when i disagree ;) > My point was really that investing the effort required to get nhc98 into > the shape that we could actually use it to ship the kind of code that we > do with GHC -- to make nhc98 a GHC competitor product -- would not be as > an efficient use of our researchers and engineers. imho it's true for short-term, false for a longer terms. we need different haskell platforms, otherwise haskell will eventually die, and core libraries such as FPS are essential part of these platforms and according to my experience, writing s/w in portable way is easy if you care about it from the beginning of project. adding portability later costs much more -- Best regards, Bulatmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Re: [Haskell-cafe] Re: Hmm, what license to use?
simonpj: > | > Unless you use a different compiler. > | > > | > Malcolm "keeping the dream of multiple implementations alive" > | > | And keep dividing our compiler teams' efforts, while > | single-implementation languages conquer :) > | > | Don "thinking that compiler developer fragmentation doesn't help now > the language research > | is 'done'" > > Don, I usually agree with almost everything you say -- but not this! > I think diversity in compilers is good. They tend to focus on > different aspects (e.g. one might be small and accessible while > another is more fully-featured but harder to modify), they keep each > other on their toes, they serve as vehicles to explore different parts > of the design space (eg jhc's implementation model is very different > to ghc's). > > Furthermore, language research in Haskell is *far* from done. I > regard GHC as a research platform, not as a product. These goals are > in tension but not in conflict -- GHC's usefulness as a research > platform is derived in large part from the fact that it is so widely > used, which in turn is because it is a decent product. > > Yes, splitting effort has costs, and those costs are particularly > apparent to you because of your fantastic work on libraries, > packaging, and distribution. But diversity also has benefits that I > would hate to lose. Much as I love GHC, my first baby, I'm glad GHC > has siblings. Yes, I shouldn't tease. We need continued sources of new ideas to keep things moving, since (going back to Malcolm's point) we see that some implementations solve particular problems in easier ways than others. My point was really that investing the effort required to get nhc98 into the shape that we could actually use it to ship the kind of code that we do with GHC -- to make nhc98 a GHC competitor product -- would not be as an efficient use of our researchers and engineers. That effort is better spent either working on GHC, or generating new ideas in areas not directly competing with GHC (like YHC's javascript backend, Hugs on the iphone, or nhc98's bytecode compression). So keep the ideas coming! -- Don ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
RE: [Haskell-cafe] Re: Hmm, what license to use?
| > Unless you use a different compiler. | > | > Malcolm "keeping the dream of multiple implementations alive" | | And keep dividing our compiler teams' efforts, while | single-implementation languages conquer :) | | Don "thinking that compiler developer fragmentation doesn't help now the language research | is 'done'" Don, I usually agree with almost everything you say -- but not this! I think diversity in compilers is good. They tend to focus on different aspects (e.g. one might be small and accessible while another is more fully-featured but harder to modify), they keep each other on their toes, they serve as vehicles to explore different parts of the design space (eg jhc's implementation model is very different to ghc's). Furthermore, language research in Haskell is *far* from done. I regard GHC as a research platform, not as a product. These goals are in tension but not in conflict -- GHC's usefulness as a research platform is derived in large part from the fact that it is so widely used, which in turn is because it is a decent product. Yes, splitting effort has costs, and those costs are particularly apparent to you because of your fantastic work on libraries, packaging, and distribution. But diversity also has benefits that I would hate to lose. Much as I love GHC, my first baby, I'm glad GHC has siblings. Simon ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Re: [Haskell-cafe] Re: Hmm, what license to use?
On Wed, 1 Oct 2008, Don Stewart wrote: > malcolm.wallace: > > Just a small nuance to what Don wrote: > > > so opinion seems to be that LGPL licensed *Haskell > > > libaries* are unsuitable for any projects you want to ship > > > commercially, without source code. > > > > Unless you use a different compiler. > > > > Malcolm "keeping the dream of multiple implementations alive" > > And keep dividing our compiler teams' efforts, while > single-implementation languages conquer :) > > Don "thinking that compiler developer fragmentation doesn't help now > the language research is 'done'" > I'm not at all sure I agree with you there. That said, licensing's a particularly poor reason for a separate implementation. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] 'In Ankh-Morpork even the shit have a street to itself... Truly this is a land of opportunity.' - Detritus, Men at Arms ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Re: [Haskell-cafe] Re: Hmm, what license to use?
Don "thinking that compiler developer fragmentation doesn't help now the language research is 'done'" Language researchers should move to a new language? Tom -- Tom Schrijvers Department of Computer Science K.U. Leuven Celestijnenlaan 200A B-3001 Heverlee Belgium tel: +32 16 327544 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] url: http://www.cs.kuleuven.be/~toms/ ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Re: [Haskell-cafe] Re: Hmm, what license to use?
malcolm.wallace: > Just a small nuance to what Don wrote: > > > * Haskell libraries are always statically linked and agressively > > inlined, > > But only for GHC (and jhc?). > > > so opinion seems to be that LGPL licensed *Haskell > > libaries* are unsuitable for any projects you want to ship > > commercially, without source code. > > Unless you use a different compiler. > > Malcolm "keeping the dream of multiple implementations alive" And keep dividing our compiler teams' efforts, while single-implementation languages conquer :) Don "thinking that compiler developer fragmentation doesn't help now the language research is 'done'" ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
[Haskell-cafe] Re: Hmm, what license to use?
> "Don" == Don Stewart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Don> * Only a small percent of Haskell libarires are LGPL, and Don> nothing for which we don't have workarounds (e.g. HDBC vs Don> galois-sqlite3 vs takusen). Hmm, Gtk2Hs & wxhaskell - major GUI libs... Sincerely, Gour -- Gour | Zagreb, Croatia | GPG key: C6E7162D pgpUqC83iosJJ.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Re: [Haskell-cafe] Re: Hmm, what license to use?
Just a small nuance to what Don wrote: * Haskell libraries are always statically linked and agressively inlined, But only for GHC (and jhc?). so opinion seems to be that LGPL licensed *Haskell libaries* are unsuitable for any projects you want to ship commercially, without source code. Unless you use a different compiler. Regards, Malcolm "keeping the dream of multiple implementations alive" Wallace ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Re: [Haskell-cafe] Re: Hmm, what license to use?
magnus: > On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 3:31 AM, brian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [..] > > as big a problem as I imagined. My understanding is that I can satisfy > > the requirements of the LGPL by dynamically linking, and that's > > already happening. Is there something else to worry about? I'd be in > > violation if I shipped something statically linked, but cabal doesn't > > seem inclined to do that by default. > > I'm not sure I understand you here. Would you clarify your words > here, bearing in mind that GHC doesn't do dynamic linking of Haskell > modules? Yes, its very simple: * C libraries are classically dynamically linked, so you're in compliance there with any LGPL C lib you use. (under the usual interpretation of the LGPL) * Haskell libraries are always statically linked and agressively inlined, so opinion seems to be that LGPL licensed *Haskell libaries* are unsuitable for any projects you want to ship commercially, without source code. * Only a small percent of Haskell libarires are LGPL, and nothing for which we don't have workarounds (e.g. HDBC vs galois-sqlite3 vs takusen). * None of the core system or Haskell platform are LGPLd, they're all "BSD3" * "BSD3" style reminds the vast majority, and preferred license, for Haskell code. IANAL. -- Don "ship some Haskell today" Stewart ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
[Haskell-cafe] Re: Hmm, what license to use?
brian wrote: On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 8:54 PM, Stefan Monnier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: That still leaves anyone free to use LGPL if they want to, but please don't assume that it allows commercial use by all potential users. It *does* allow commercial use. Your example just shows that some people may decide not to take advantage of it, based not on problematic restrictions but just on paranoia. I was confused and worried about this subject lately, too; at some point in the future, I may want to ship closed-source commercial software that uses various LGPL libraries. But it doesn't seem to be as big a problem as I imagined. My understanding is that I can satisfy the requirements of the LGPL by dynamically linking, and that's already happening. Dynamic linking doesn't solve all the problems, we still have the problem that GHC does a lot of cross-module inlining, regardless of whether dynamic linking is used. However, I really would like to have a way to have complete control over what is exposed across a package boundary. We need this not just for licensing reasons, but also for making a dynamic library with a fixed ABI, so it can be upgraded later. Incedentally the lack of this feature is one reason I've not being rushing to get shared libraries into GHC. They're just not that useful unless you can upgrade a library independently of the things it depends on. Cheers, Simon ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Re: [Haskell-cafe] Re: Hmm, what license to use?
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 3:31 AM, brian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [..] > as big a problem as I imagined. My understanding is that I can satisfy > the requirements of the LGPL by dynamically linking, and that's > already happening. Is there something else to worry about? I'd be in > violation if I shipped something statically linked, but cabal doesn't > seem inclined to do that by default. I'm not sure I understand you here. Would you clarify your words here, bearing in mind that GHC doesn't do dynamic linking of Haskell modules? Cheers, M -- Magnus Therning(OpenPGP: 0xAB4DFBA4) magnus＠therning．org Jabber: magnus＠therning．org http://therning.org/magnus identi.ca|twitter: magthe ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Re: [Haskell-cafe] Re: Hmm, what license to use?
brianchina60221: > On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 8:54 PM, Stefan Monnier > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> That still leaves anyone free to use LGPL if they want to, but please > >> don't assume that it allows commercial use by all potential users. > > > > It *does* allow commercial use. Your example just shows that some > > people may decide not to take advantage of it, based not on problematic > > restrictions but just on paranoia. > > I was confused and worried about this subject lately, too; at some > point in the future, I may want to ship closed-source commercial > software that uses various LGPL libraries. But it doesn't seem to be > as big a problem as I imagined. My understanding is that I can satisfy > the requirements of the LGPL by dynamically linking, and that's > already happening. Is there something else to worry about? I'd be in > violation if I shipped something statically linked, but cabal doesn't > seem inclined to do that by default. And, importantly, the vast, vast majority of Haskell code is BSD licensed, and the licenses are prominently displayed. -- Don ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Re: [Haskell-cafe] Re: Hmm, what license to use?
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 8:54 PM, Stefan Monnier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> That still leaves anyone free to use LGPL if they want to, but please >> don't assume that it allows commercial use by all potential users. > > It *does* allow commercial use. Your example just shows that some > people may decide not to take advantage of it, based not on problematic > restrictions but just on paranoia. I was confused and worried about this subject lately, too; at some point in the future, I may want to ship closed-source commercial software that uses various LGPL libraries. But it doesn't seem to be as big a problem as I imagined. My understanding is that I can satisfy the requirements of the LGPL by dynamically linking, and that's already happening. Is there something else to worry about? I'd be in violation if I shipped something statically linked, but cabal doesn't seem inclined to do that by default. ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
[Haskell-cafe] Re: Hmm, what license to use?
> I am not allowed to use such an interpretation. The (expensive and very > carefully researched) legal advice used to shape the use of Open Source > code at my employer has resulted in a "no LGPL under any circumstances > whatsoever" policy. [...] > That still leaves anyone free to use LGPL if they want to, but please > don't assume that it allows commercial use by all potential users. It *does* allow commercial use. Your example just shows that some people may decide not to take advantage of it, based not on problematic restrictions but just on paranoia. Stefan ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
[Haskell-cafe] Re: Hmm, what license to use?
"Magnus Therning" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sat, Sep 27, 2008 at 4:59 PM, Simon Marlow > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [..] > >> That would be serious indeed, but before changing my ways I'd need > >> more information to back up your statement. Could someone confirm > >> that code from one installed module can be inlined into another? > > > > When optimisation is turned on, you have virtually no control over > > how much code GHC will copy from one module to another, which is > > why several people (me included) have expressed concerns about the > > use of an unmodified LGPL with Haskell code in the past. I believe > > at one stage we even asked for clarification from the FSF, but I > > don't recall getting an answer. > > Thanks for this clarification. In my limited understanding of > licenses this would mean that in the Haskell world LGPL and GPL > basically are the same. I suppose it's an excellent example of just > how difficult it is for "law" to keep up with technology, even when > the "law" is written by technologists. > > I guess it means I might as well relicense all my Haskell code under > GPL instead. > > I'm also disappointed to hear that the FSF hasn't bothered responding > to this issue. What part of the FSF was approached? Does someone > still have copies of the letters/email that was sent? > IMHO, and IANAL, inlining core from .hi's shouldn't be any different than calling a macro out of a .h... http://www.wxwidgets.org/about/newlicen.htm might be an interesting read regarding that topic, as wxwidgets heavily relies on macros for declarations. In another sphere (lua, that is) there is spring[1], whose developers more or less say that the FSF has lost its mind by interpreting mods as derived works, thus requiring them to be published under the GPL. [1] http://spring.clan-sy.com -- (c) this sig last receiving data processing entity. Inspect headers for copyright history. All rights reserved. Copying, hiring, renting, performance and/or broadcasting of this signature prohibited. ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
[Haskell-cafe] Re: Hmm, what license to use?
On Sat, Sep 27, 2008 at 4:59 PM, Simon Marlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [..] >> That would be serious indeed, but before changing my ways I'd need more >> information to back up your statement. Could someone confirm that code >> from one installed module can be inlined into another? > > When optimisation is turned on, you have virtually no control over how much > code GHC will copy from one module to another, which is why several people > (me included) have expressed concerns about the use of an unmodified LGPL > with Haskell code in the past. I believe at one stage we even asked for > clarification from the FSF, but I don't recall getting an answer. Thanks for this clarification. In my limited understanding of licenses this would mean that in the Haskell world LGPL and GPL basically are the same. I suppose it's an excellent example of just how difficult it is for "law" to keep up with technology, even when the "law" is written by technologists. I guess it means I might as well relicense all my Haskell code under GPL instead. I'm also disappointed to hear that the FSF hasn't bothered responding to this issue. What part of the FSF was approached? Does someone still have copies of the letters/email that was sent? /M -- Magnus Therning(OpenPGP: 0xAB4DFBA4) magnus＠therning．org Jabber: magnus＠therning．org http://therning.org/magnus identi.ca|twitter: magthe ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Re: [Haskell-cafe] Re: Hmm, what license to use?
On 2008 Sep 27, at 11:59, Simon Marlow wrote: Magnus Therning wrote: Wolfgang Jeltsch wrote: Am Freitag, 26. September 2008 09:24 schrieb Magnus Therning: Recently I received an email with a question regarding the licensing of a module I've written and uploaded to Hackage. I released it under LGPL. The sender wondered if I would consider re-licensing the code under BSD (or something similar) that would remove the need for users to provide linkable object files so that users can re-link programs against newer/modified versions of my library. Since GHC does cross-package inlining, code of your library is directly included (not just linked) into code that uses the library. So I think that every code that uses your library will have to be released und the GPL or LGPL which is a very bad situation. People, don’t release Haskell libraries under the LGPL! That would be serious indeed, but before changing my ways I'd need more information to back up your statement. Could someone confirm that code from one installed module can be inlined into another? When optimisation is turned on, you have virtually no control over how much code GHC will copy from one module to another, which is why several people (me included) have expressed concerns about the use of an unmodified LGPL with Haskell code in the past. I believe at one stage we even asked for clarification from the FSF, but I don't recall getting an answer. As for confirmation, try ghc --dump-iface on a .hi file, often you will see GHC Core in the .hi so that it can be inlined in modules importing it. -- brandon s. allbery [solaris,freebsd,perl,pugs,haskell] [EMAIL PROTECTED] system administrator [openafs,heimdal,too many hats] [EMAIL PROTECTED] electrical and computer engineering, carnegie mellon universityKF8NH ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
[Haskell-cafe] Re: Hmm, what license to use?
Magnus Therning wrote: Wolfgang Jeltsch wrote: Am Freitag, 26. September 2008 09:24 schrieb Magnus Therning: Recently I received an email with a question regarding the licensing of a module I've written and uploaded to Hackage. I released it under LGPL. The sender wondered if I would consider re-licensing the code under BSD (or something similar) that would remove the need for users to provide linkable object files so that users can re-link programs against newer/modified versions of my library. Since GHC does cross-package inlining, code of your library is directly included (not just linked) into code that uses the library. So I think that every code that uses your library will have to be released und the GPL or LGPL which is a very bad situation. People, don’t release Haskell libraries under the LGPL! That would be serious indeed, but before changing my ways I'd need more information to back up your statement. Could someone confirm that code from one installed module can be inlined into another? When optimisation is turned on, you have virtually no control over how much code GHC will copy from one module to another, which is why several people (me included) have expressed concerns about the use of an unmodified LGPL with Haskell code in the past. I believe at one stage we even asked for clarification from the FSF, but I don't recall getting an answer. Cheers, Simon ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Re: [Haskell-cafe] Re: Hmm, what license to use?
On Fri, 2008-09-26 at 09:48 -0700, Jonathan Cast wrote: > On Fri, 2008-09-26 at 18:50 +0200, Achim Schneider wrote: > > Jonathan Cast <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > On Fri, 2008-09-26 at 18:26 +0200, Achim Schneider wrote: > > > > Jonathan Cast <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Fri, 2008-09-26 at 13:01 -0300, Marco Túlio Gontijo e Silva > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > Op vrijdag 26-09-2008 om 11:45 uur [tijdzone -0400], schreef > > > > > > Stefan Monnier: > > > > > > > > When I compare GPL and MIT/BSD licenses, I do a simple > > > > > > > > reasoning. Suppose a doctor in a battle field meet a badly > > > > > > > > injuried enemy. Should he help the enemy? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My answer would be that he indeed should, at the condition > > > > > > > that the patient will switch side. Oh wait, that's just what > > > > > > > the GPL says. > > > > > > > > > > > > This is a good requisition if he is sure that he is on the right > > > > > > side of the battle, which is a assumption the soldier probably > > > > > > does, but should the doctor do it too? > > > > > > > > > > Yikes. I should go create a /. thread for this to move to. > > > > > > > > > The standard practise: > > > > > > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triage > > > > > > > > has enough moral compensations by itself to make you gulp. > > > > > > Huh? Has that page been edited since you last looked at it? It > > > doesn't say a thing about military practice, specifically, except > > > that it originated *behind the French lines* in WWI, which I guess is > > > where all those German soldiers were taken so they could be patched > > > up and returned to their own side. > > > > > Indeed it doesn't and neither did my civil protection training, and I > > didn't intend to post a link containing such information. > > > > I wasn't told anything about enemies, either, but since I'd be there > > in official office, not helping would not only mean risking getting > > sentenced on the grounds of failure to aid, but negligent homicide. > > > > I don't know about military paramedics, but the same law should apply. > > I don't trust your instincts w.r.t. `should' as applied to the military. Nevertheless, this thread has gone *far* off-topic. It no longer has any relation to software licensing, software, or Haskell, and I will personally no longer contribute to it. I will also be deleting any further emails unread. jcc ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
[Haskell-cafe] Re: Hmm, what license to use?
Thomas Davie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 26 Sep 2008, at 17:51, Jonathan Cast wrote: > > > On Fri, 2008-09-26 at 12:17 +0200, Thomas Davie wrote: > >> On 26 Sep 2008, at 12:12, Janis Voigtlaender wrote: > >> > >>> Manlio Perillo wrote: > When I compare GPL and MIT/BSD licenses, I do a simple reasoning. > Suppose a doctor in a battle field meet a badly injuried enemy. > Should he help the enemy? > >>> > >>> I'm so glad I don't understand this ;-) > >> > >> Should you decide not to give someone something based on the fact > >> that > >> you either don't like them, or don't like what they'll do with the > >> thing you give them. > > > > I think the standard answer to your question is that you get the > > enemy to *surrender* first, patch him up enough to move him, and > > then stick him in a POW camp for the duration, or until you get > > something in return > > for releasing him. > > > > I would never patch someone up so he can go back to *shooting* at > > me, or > > my friends. Never. > > Yet doctors all abide by the hypocratic(sp?) oath. > They may abide by it, but they're, at least in Germany, not required to take it. They're only required to abide by the law. The oath itself has been obsoleted by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_Geneva , btw. -- (c) this sig last receiving data processing entity. Inspect headers for copyright history. All rights reserved. Copying, hiring, renting, performance and/or broadcasting of this signature prohibited. ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Re: [Haskell-cafe] Re: Hmm, what license to use?
On Fri, 2008-09-26 at 18:50 +0200, Achim Schneider wrote: > Jonathan Cast <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Fri, 2008-09-26 at 18:26 +0200, Achim Schneider wrote: > > > Jonathan Cast <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > On Fri, 2008-09-26 at 13:01 -0300, Marco Túlio Gontijo e Silva > > > > wrote: > > > > > Op vrijdag 26-09-2008 om 11:45 uur [tijdzone -0400], schreef > > > > > Stefan Monnier: > > > > > > > When I compare GPL and MIT/BSD licenses, I do a simple > > > > > > > reasoning. Suppose a doctor in a battle field meet a badly > > > > > > > injuried enemy. Should he help the enemy? > > > > > > > > > > > > My answer would be that he indeed should, at the condition > > > > > > that the patient will switch side. Oh wait, that's just what > > > > > > the GPL says. > > > > > > > > > > This is a good requisition if he is sure that he is on the right > > > > > side of the battle, which is a assumption the soldier probably > > > > > does, but should the doctor do it too? > > > > > > > > Yikes. I should go create a /. thread for this to move to. > > > > > > > The standard practise: > > > > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triage > > > > > > has enough moral compensations by itself to make you gulp. > > > > Huh? Has that page been edited since you last looked at it? It > > doesn't say a thing about military practice, specifically, except > > that it originated *behind the French lines* in WWI, which I guess is > > where all those German soldiers were taken so they could be patched > > up and returned to their own side. > > > Indeed it doesn't and neither did my civil protection training, and I > didn't intend to post a link containing such information. > > I wasn't told anything about enemies, either, but since I'd be there > in official office, not helping would not only mean risking getting > sentenced on the grounds of failure to aid, but negligent homicide. > > I don't know about military paramedics, but the same law should apply. I don't trust your instincts w.r.t. `should' as applied to the military. jcc ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
[Haskell-cafe] Re: Hmm, what license to use?
Jonathan Cast <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, 2008-09-26 at 18:26 +0200, Achim Schneider wrote: > > Jonathan Cast <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > On Fri, 2008-09-26 at 13:01 -0300, Marco Túlio Gontijo e Silva > > > wrote: > > > > Op vrijdag 26-09-2008 om 11:45 uur [tijdzone -0400], schreef > > > > Stefan Monnier: > > > > > > When I compare GPL and MIT/BSD licenses, I do a simple > > > > > > reasoning. Suppose a doctor in a battle field meet a badly > > > > > > injuried enemy. Should he help the enemy? > > > > > > > > > > My answer would be that he indeed should, at the condition > > > > > that the patient will switch side. Oh wait, that's just what > > > > > the GPL says. > > > > > > > > This is a good requisition if he is sure that he is on the right > > > > side of the battle, which is a assumption the soldier probably > > > > does, but should the doctor do it too? > > > > > > Yikes. I should go create a /. thread for this to move to. > > > > > The standard practise: > > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triage > > > > has enough moral compensations by itself to make you gulp. > > Huh? Has that page been edited since you last looked at it? It > doesn't say a thing about military practice, specifically, except > that it originated *behind the French lines* in WWI, which I guess is > where all those German soldiers were taken so they could be patched > up and returned to their own side. > Indeed it doesn't and neither did my civil protection training, and I didn't intend to post a link containing such information. I wasn't told anything about enemies, either, but since I'd be there in official office, not helping would not only mean risking getting sentenced on the grounds of failure to aid, but negligent homicide. I don't know about military paramedics, but the same law should apply. Self-preservation, OTOH, is the first duty of all medical personnel. -- (c) this sig last receiving data processing entity. Inspect headers for copyright history. All rights reserved. Copying, hiring, renting, performance and/or broadcasting of this signature prohibited. ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Re: [Haskell-cafe] Re: Hmm, what license to use?
On Fri, 2008-09-26 at 18:26 +0200, Achim Schneider wrote: > Jonathan Cast <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Fri, 2008-09-26 at 13:01 -0300, Marco Túlio Gontijo e Silva wrote: > > > Op vrijdag 26-09-2008 om 11:45 uur [tijdzone -0400], schreef Stefan > > > Monnier: > > > > > When I compare GPL and MIT/BSD licenses, I do a simple > > > > > reasoning. Suppose a doctor in a battle field meet a badly > > > > > injuried enemy. Should he help the enemy? > > > > > > > > My answer would be that he indeed should, at the condition that > > > > the patient will switch side. Oh wait, that's just what the GPL > > > > says. > > > > > > This is a good requisition if he is sure that he is on the right > > > side of the battle, which is a assumption the soldier probably > > > does, but should the doctor do it too? > > > > Yikes. I should go create a /. thread for this to move to. > > > The standard practise: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triage > > has enough moral compensations by itself to make you gulp. Huh? Has that page been edited since you last looked at it? It doesn't say a thing about military practice, specifically, except that it originated *behind the French lines* in WWI, which I guess is where all those German soldiers were taken so they could be patched up and returned to their own side. Sheesh. jcc ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
[Haskell-cafe] Re: Hmm, what license to use?
Jonathan Cast <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, 2008-09-26 at 13:01 -0300, Marco Túlio Gontijo e Silva wrote: > > Op vrijdag 26-09-2008 om 11:45 uur [tijdzone -0400], schreef Stefan > > Monnier: > > > > When I compare GPL and MIT/BSD licenses, I do a simple > > > > reasoning. Suppose a doctor in a battle field meet a badly > > > > injuried enemy. Should he help the enemy? > > > > > > My answer would be that he indeed should, at the condition that > > > the patient will switch side. Oh wait, that's just what the GPL > > > says. > > > > This is a good requisition if he is sure that he is on the right > > side of the battle, which is a assumption the soldier probably > > does, but should the doctor do it too? > > Yikes. I should go create a /. thread for this to move to. > The standard practise: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triage has enough moral compensations by itself to make you gulp. Medical personnel, in general, doesn't care about sides, morals or any such bickering but helps. -- (c) this sig last receiving data processing entity. Inspect headers for copyright history. All rights reserved. Copying, hiring, renting, performance and/or broadcasting of this signature prohibited. ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Re: [Haskell-cafe] Re: Hmm, what license to use?
On Fri, 2008-09-26 at 13:01 -0300, Marco Túlio Gontijo e Silva wrote: > Op vrijdag 26-09-2008 om 11:45 uur [tijdzone -0400], schreef Stefan > Monnier: > > > When I compare GPL and MIT/BSD licenses, I do a simple reasoning. > > > Suppose a doctor in a battle field meet a badly injuried enemy. > > > Should he help the enemy? > > > > My answer would be that he indeed should, at the condition that the > > patient will switch side. Oh wait, that's just what the GPL says. > > This is a good requisition if he is sure that he is on the right side of > the battle, which is a assumption the soldier probably does, but should > the doctor do it too? Yikes. I should go create a /. thread for this to move to. jcc ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
[Haskell-cafe] Re: Hmm, what license to use?
Wolfgang Jeltsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Am Freitag, 26. September 2008 09:24 schrieb Magnus Therning: > > Now I have fairly strong feelings about freedom of code and I > > everything I release is either under GPL or LGPL. > > Ah, the RMS prevarication. ;-) Honestly, copyleft gives the user > *less* freedom because he can no longer choose a license for > redistribution freely. > That utterly depends on circumstance. Consider SDL and e.g. the id engine: Indeed every SDL user is given the freedom to link the engine to any SDL version he chooses, thus making it possible for arcane-private-os user XYZ to quake to his heart's content. The BSD is geared towards freedom of developers, the LGPL is geared towards freedom of developers _and_ users, the GPL itself towards freedom of all software. As with everything trying to influence everything that isn't itself everything, it has serious issues with reality compatibility. I still think that the proper solution to the OP's problem isn't yet another licence those vultures called lawyers can nitpick about, but to support painless dynamic linking. That means statically compiling Haskell to a .so or, preferable for applications that are written in Haskell, loading .hi/.ho combinations or even whole collections of those packed in a .hso or something. -- (c) this sig last receiving data processing entity. Inspect headers for copyright history. All rights reserved. Copying, hiring, renting, performance and/or broadcasting of this signature prohibited. ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Re: [Haskell-cafe] Re: Hmm, what license to use?
Op vrijdag 26-09-2008 om 11:45 uur [tijdzone -0400], schreef Stefan Monnier: > > When I compare GPL and MIT/BSD licenses, I do a simple reasoning. > > Suppose a doctor in a battle field meet a badly injuried enemy. > > Should he help the enemy? > > My answer would be that he indeed should, at the condition that the > patient will switch side. Oh wait, that's just what the GPL says. This is a good requisition if he is sure that he is on the right side of the battle, which is a assumption the soldier probably does, but should the doctor do it too? Accept my truth or die. > Stefan "Analogies are broken" Analogies doesn't have the pretension of being perfect. If they were, they wouldn't be analogies. Greetings. -- marcot Página: http://marcotmarcot.iaaeee.org/ Blog: http://marcotmarcot.blogspot.com/ Correio: [EMAIL PROTECTED] XMPP: [EMAIL PROTECTED] IRC: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Telefone: 25151920 Celular: 98116720 Endereço: Rua Turfa, 639/701 Prado 30410-370 Belo Horizonte/MG Brasil ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
[Haskell-cafe] Re: Hmm, what license to use?
Magnus Therning wrote: I've heard that the OCaml crowd uses a modified LGPL with a static linking exception. Unfortunately I've also heard that their addition to LGPL hasn't gotten much review by lawyers, I'd much rather use something that feels less ad hoc, if you get what I mean. Any suggestions? I don't know of any "officially sanctioned" licenses that have this property, but I'd just like to call for the LGPL + static linking exception license to be made more visible by putting it on the wiki somewhere, or perhaps including it as an option for the license field in Cabal. We need to publicise the fact that complying with the LGPL is difficult in the context of Haskell, and give people a way to easily work around it. Cheers, Simon ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
[Haskell-cafe] Re: Hmm, what license to use?
> When I compare GPL and MIT/BSD licenses, I do a simple reasoning. > Suppose a doctor in a battle field meet a badly injuried enemy. > Should he help the enemy? My answer would be that he indeed should, at the condition that the patient will switch side. Oh wait, that's just what the GPL says. Stefan "Analogies are broken" ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
[Haskell-cafe] Re: Hmm, what license to use?
Manlio Perillo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Colin Paul Adams ha scritto: > >> "Thomas" == Thomas Davie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > > > Thomas> Sorry, this isn't the most relevant comment to the > > Thomas> discussion, but I thought I'd add my own thought re the > > Thomas> gpl/lgpl. My personal feeling is that the point of open > > Thomas> source is to allow people the freedom to do what they > > Thomas> want with a piece of code. The GPL/LGPL go completely > > Thomas> against this idea, in that they restrict what I can do > > Thomas> with the code to only things that are similarly > > Thomas> licensed. > > > > No, the point of free software is to prevent people from denying > > other people the right to use the code. > > > > Allowing people to do what they like at the expense of other people > > is not freedom. > > When I compare GPL and MIT/BSD licenses, I do a simple reasoning. > Suppose a doctor in a battle field meet a badly injuried enemy. > Should he help the enemy? > I think your example is a little flawed, I'd see it like this: Is the patient conscious? Is he still holding his gun? If yes, get the hell away. -- (c) this sig last receiving data processing entity. Inspect headers for copyright history. All rights reserved. Copying, hiring, renting, performance and/or broadcasting of this signature prohibited. ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Re: [Haskell-cafe] Re: Hmm, what license to use?
On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 9:32 AM, Achim Schneider <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > "Magnus Therning" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 8:59 AM, Achim Schneider <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> wrote: [..] >> >> > Concerning Haskell, just tell them to use the ghc-lib and link (or >> > even compile) at runtime. >> >> "ghc-lib", never heard of it, where can I find out more? >> > http://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/GHC/As_a_library > > As it's notoriously undocumented in places where the documentation > isn't out of date, I recommend downloading the Yi[1] source and have a > look at how it's done. A cool thing, but I don't really see that more or less forcing people to use it in order to use my module is a lighter burden than to provide linkable object files. /M -- Magnus Therning(OpenPGP: 0xAB4DFBA4) magnus＠therning．org Jabber: magnus＠therning．org http://therning.org/magnus identi.ca|twitter: magthe ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
[Haskell-cafe] Re: Hmm, what license to use?
Thomas Davie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > That's my 2p's worth on why I use the BSD license over the GPL. In > short, the GPL does not promote freedom, it promotes restrictions, > just not the restrictions we've grown to hate from most companies. > Btw: The BSD license is GPL-compatible, it's the CDDL that's not. Blame Sun, not the GPL. -- (c) this sig last receiving data processing entity. Inspect headers for copyright history. All rights reserved. Copying, hiring, renting, performance and/or broadcasting of this signature prohibited. ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
[Haskell-cafe] Re: Hmm, what license to use?
"Magnus Therning" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 8:59 AM, Achim Schneider <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: [..] > > > Concerning Haskell, just tell them to use the ghc-lib and link (or > > even compile) at runtime. > > "ghc-lib", never heard of it, where can I find out more? > http://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/GHC/As_a_library As it's notoriously undocumented in places where the documentation isn't out of date, I recommend downloading the Yi[1] source and have a look at how it's done. [1] http://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/Yi -- (c) this sig last receiving data processing entity. Inspect headers for copyright history. All rights reserved. Copying, hiring, renting, performance and/or broadcasting of this signature prohibited. ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
[Haskell-cafe] Re: Hmm, what license to use?
Thomas Davie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I've seen this cause problems even in environments where there's no > commercial gain to be had. Take for example the zfs file system. > Sun have been kind enough to completely open source it. > Unfortunately, linux users can never hope for stable version that > works in the kernel, simply because the GPL stipulates that zfs must > be relicensed to do so. > http://www.wizy.org/wiki/ZFS_on_FUSE I see no problem using FUSE, including stability. ntfs-3g does, too, and it works like a charm. -- (c) this sig last receiving data processing entity. Inspect headers for copyright history. All rights reserved. Copying, hiring, renting, performance and/or broadcasting of this signature prohibited. ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Re: [Haskell-cafe] Re: Hmm, what license to use?
On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 8:59 AM, Achim Schneider <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [..] > Concerning Haskell, just tell them to use the ghc-lib and link (or even > compile) at runtime. "ghc-lib", never heard of it, where can I find out more? /M -- Magnus Therning(OpenPGP: 0xAB4DFBA4) magnus＠therning．org Jabber: magnus＠therning．org http://therning.org/magnus identi.ca|twitter: magthe ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
[Haskell-cafe] Re: Hmm, what license to use?
"Magnus Therning" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I released it under > LGPL. The sender wondered if I would consider re-licensing the code > under BSD (or something similar) that would remove the need for users > to provide linkable object files so that users can re-link programs > against newer/modified versions of my library. > In general, you could just change your licencing to GPL, requiring people to provide source to enable relinking/everything else, and sell private licences to people who don't want to open up their code. At least that's what I do, I don't like freeloaders.[1] Concerning Haskell, just tell them to use the ghc-lib and link (or even compile) at runtime. [1] Things like Haskell and lua are exceptions, I'd release them under BSD, too. But then I didn't ever do such a thing. -- (c) this sig last receiving data processing entity. Inspect headers for copyright history. All rights reserved. Copying, hiring, renting, performance and/or broadcasting of this signature prohibited. ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
