[please consider taking followups off-line, as the Haskell content of
this thread has started to become rather low. -moderator]
On 22-Jul-1998, Simon Marlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hutchison) writes:
>
> > There are *two* GNU licenses. The GPL is meant for tools, like
On 22-Jul-1998, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I do think that the GNU license would be a mistake -- as I understand, it
> would prevent the use of GHC in commercial projects, and I'm pretty sure
> that's something Simon wants to *encourage*.
There are two simple ways to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hutchison) writes:
> There are *two* GNU licenses. The GPL is meant for tools, like GHC, and
> would prevent certain uses of GHC. There is a second GNU license for
> libraries, called LGPL, and this is important. The runtime components of
> GHC should be licensed using the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>I do think that the GNU license would be a mistake -- as I understand, it
>would prevent the use of GHC in commercial projects, and I'm pretty sure
>that's something Simon wants to *encourage*.
The GPL explicitly allows commercial use. The commercially problemati
On Wed, 22 Jul 1998 08:51:47 GMT, you wrote:
>CC: Simon L Peyton Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>
>I do think that the GNU license would be a mistake -- as I understand, it
>would prevent the use of GHC in commercial projects, and I'm pretty sure
>that's something Simon wants to *encourage*.
>
ly 1998 20:20
To: Simon L Peyton Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: GHC licence (was Could Haskell be t
Simon L Peyton Jones wrote:
> > Simon L Peyton Jones wrote:
>
> > Do you mean "public domain" literally, i.e. are
On 21-Jul-1998, Hans Aberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 23:28 +1000 98/07/21, Fergus Henderson wrote:
> >I ANAL, but I believe the phrase "public domain" is a well-defined concept.
> >It does not mean why Simon L Peyton Jones means by it, though.
> >If something is public domain, then anyone ca
On 21-Jul-1998, Hans Aberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 10:38 +0100 98/07/21, Simon L Peyton Jones wrote:
> >> Do you mean "public domain" literally, i.e. are you renouncing all
> >> copyright? (The source code contains copyright notices, but no
> >> licence, as far as I can see.)
> >
> >No I
On Tue, 21 Jul 1998, Simon L Peyton Jones wrote:
> (...) But it's never been a problem so far, and I doubt it will in the
future, so I'm reluctant to invest the time until pressed to do so.
No need to apologize to a group of haskell fanatics for using lazy
evaluation to solve this problem
Simon L Peyton Jones wrote:
> > Simon L Peyton Jones wrote:
>
> > Do you mean "public domain" literally, i.e. are you renouncing all
> > copyright? (The source code contains copyright notices, but no
> > licence, as far as I can see.)
>
> No I am not renouncing all copyright. By "public domain"
> No I am not renouncing all copyright. By "public domain" I mean freely
> available for anyone to use for any purpose other than making money
> by selling the compiler itself. That isn't a formal definition,
> but I'm sure you see the intent.
>
> I have carefully avoided getting tangled up in
At 23:28 +1000 98/07/21, Fergus Henderson wrote:
>I ANAL, but I believe the phrase "public domain" is a well-defined concept.
>It does not mean why Simon L Peyton Jones means by it, though.
>If something is public domain, then anyone can use it for anything.
I recall from the eighties about wha
> "Simon" == Simon L Peyton Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Simon L Peyton Jones wrote:
>> > So far as GHC is concerned, I wrote on this list a month ago:
>> > "More specifically, I plan to continue beavering away on GHC.
>> > GHC is public domain software, and Microsoft are happy for it
> It might be a good idea to publish GHC under the GNU Public License or
> something similar. It grants everybody the right to use the software for
> any purpose, including making extensions or modifications of it - as long
> as the "derived work" is published under GPL as well. This ensures tha
At 10:38 +0100 98/07/21, Simon L Peyton Jones wrote:
>> Do you mean "public domain" literally, i.e. are you renouncing all
>> copyright? (The source code contains copyright notices, but no
>> licence, as far as I can see.)
>
>No I am not renouncing all copyright. By "public domain" I mean freely
Jorgen Frojk Kjaersgaard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It might be a good idea to publish GHC under the GNU Public License or
> something similar. It grants everybody the right to use the software for
> any purpose, including making extensions or modifications of it - as long
> as the "derived work
> Simon L Peyton Jones wrote:
> > So far as GHC is concerned, I wrote on this list a month ago:
> > "More specifically, I plan to continue beavering away on GHC.
> > GHC is public domain software, and Microsoft are happy for it to
> > remain so, source code and all. If anything, I'll have quite
Simon L Peyton Jones wrote:
> So far as GHC is concerned, I wrote on this list a month ago:
> "More specifically, I plan to continue beavering away on GHC.
> GHC is public domain software, and Microsoft are happy for it to
> remain so, source code and all. If anything, I'll have quite a bit
> mo
18 matches
Mail list logo
