Hi
You mean shared libraries without the opportunity to
inline library code?
This would result in a huge performance loss, I think.
Usually _mild_ performance loss, in exchange for major code-size
savings, I would think. C obviously has worked quite fine under
exactly this
2008/10/3 Mitchell, Neil [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Hi
You mean shared libraries without the opportunity to
inline library code?
This would result in a huge performance loss, I think.
Usually _mild_ performance loss, in exchange for major code-size
savings, I would think. C obviously has
Am Freitag, 3. Oktober 2008 13:36 schrieben Sie:
[…]
What happens in the C++ world where good chunk of functionnalities are
in header files (templates or inline methods);
is there the same LGPL problem that the one discussed here w.r.t.
static/shared linking ?
I've never heard about
On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 4:36 AM, minh thu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2008/10/3 Mitchell, Neil [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Hi
You mean shared libraries without the opportunity to
inline library code?
This would result in a huge performance loss, I think.
Usually _mild_ performance
On Fri, 2008-10-03 at 10:08 -0700, David Leimbach wrote:
On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 4:36 AM, minh thu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2008/10/3 Mitchell, Neil [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Hi
You mean shared libraries without the opportunity to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Wolfgang Jeltsch wrote:
Am Donnerstag, 2. Oktober 2008 20:33 schrieben Sie:
Wolfgang Jeltsch wrote:
You mean shared libraries without the opportunity to inline library code?
This would result in a huge performance loss, I think.
Usually _mild_
Am Dienstag, 30. September 2008 00:18 schrieb Duncan Coutts:
Yet another reason for getting dynamic linking / shared libs for Haskell
packages working reliably on all platforms.
You mean shared libraries without the opportunity to inline library code?
This would result in a huge performance
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Wolfgang Jeltsch wrote:
Am Dienstag, 30. September 2008 00:18 schrieb Duncan Coutts:
Yet another reason for getting dynamic linking / shared libs for Haskell
packages working reliably on all platforms.
You mean shared libraries without the
Am Donnerstag, 2. Oktober 2008 20:33 schrieben Sie:
Wolfgang Jeltsch wrote:
You mean shared libraries without the opportunity to inline library code?
This would result in a huge performance loss, I think.
Usually _mild_ performance loss, in exchange for major code-size
savings, I would
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 11:25 AM, Wolfgang Jeltsch
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Am Dienstag, 30. September 2008 00:18 schrieb Duncan Coutts:
Yet another reason for getting dynamic linking / shared libs for Haskell
packages working reliably on all platforms.
You mean shared libraries without
Hello Wolfgang,
Thursday, October 2, 2008, 11:25:52 PM, you wrote:
You mean shared libraries without the opportunity to inline library code?
This would result in a huge performance loss, I think.
Usually _mild_ performance loss, in exchange for major code-size
savings, I would think. C
bulat.ziganshin:
Hello Wolfgang,
Thursday, October 2, 2008, 11:25:52 PM, you wrote:
You mean shared libraries without the opportunity to inline library code?
This would result in a huge performance loss, I think.
Usually _mild_ performance loss, in exchange for major code-size
Hello Don,
Friday, October 3, 2008, 2:22:49 AM, you wrote:
and type classes. once i've forget to addinline pragma, my program
(serializing arrays) becomes 200x slower. it was due to use of
hieararchy of several type classes. afaiu, their dictionaries are also
lazily evaluated plus we have
Don Stewart [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
So if you use LGPL for your Haskell libraries, all of which are
currently statically linked and non-replaceable at runtime, it is
unlikely any commercial Haskell house can use the code.
As already mentioned, you can ask the author nicely for a different
On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 10:39 PM, Don Stewart [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
magnus:
2008/9/29 Bit Connor [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
[..]
Basically it seems to me that you believe in the benevolence and
enligtenment of companies. Something I don't. I believe you are
right in splitting the LGPL into two
On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 14:39:33 -0700, Don Stewart [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
magnus:
2008/9/29 Bit Connor [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
[..]
Basically it seems to me that you believe in the benevolence and
enligtenment of companies. Something I don't. I believe you are
right in splitting the LGPL
Jeremy O'Donoghue [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Therefore, I have to say that for at least some commercial users, LGPL
will never be acceptable, and GPL is actually more acceptable because we
know for sure what obligations it places on us.
I don't see how this can be, since according to clause 2b
Bit Connor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I believe that it's wrong to use a license to try to enforce such
cooperation. Look what happened with KHTML when Apple started using
it for their Safari web browser.
I haven't followed this in detail, but I think that, even when a
company is reluctant to
On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 4:06 AM, Michael Giagnocavo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Goal 2 (The open source angle): Developers who use the library
should have to contribute their modifications of the library back to
the community. I believe that it's wrong to use a license to try to
enforce such
2008/9/29 Bit Connor [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
[..]
Basically it seems to me that you believe in the benevolence and
enligtenment of companies. Something I don't. I believe you are
right in splitting the LGPL into two different objectives, and you are
right in saying that I really only care about
magnus:
2008/9/29 Bit Connor [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
[..]
Basically it seems to me that you believe in the benevolence and
enligtenment of companies. Something I don't. I believe you are
right in splitting the LGPL into two different objectives, and you are
right in saying that I really only
G'day all.
Quoting 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
On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 12:20 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[..]
The risk in picking yet another licence, one that satisfies your
opinions on software freedom, is even more confusion. If the usual
BSD-like licence doesn't do it for you, I would be concerned about
adding yet another licence
On 26 Sep 2008, at 08:24, 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
Goal 2 (The open source angle): Developers who use the library
should have to contribute their modifications of the library back to
the community. I believe that it's wrong to use a license to try to
enforce such cooperation. Look what happened with KHTML when Apple
started using it for their
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
Hello Magnus,
Saturday, September 27, 2008, 3:48:27 PM, you wrote:
AFAIU you are saying that the linker is reaching into the module's .a
file, pulling out the .o file, and then reaching into that .o file to
pull out an individual function's ASM code. I believe that's a bit more
than regular
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
Now I have fairly strong feelings about freedom of code and I
everything I release is either under GPL or LGPL. What I like about
those licenses is it protects freedom in a way that I think it should
and it forces a sort of reciprocity which resonates very well with my
selfishness. Re-licensing
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
On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 9:12 AM, Thomas Davie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Now I have fairly strong feelings about freedom of code and I
everything I release is either under GPL or LGPL. What I like about
those licenses is it protects freedom in a way that I think it should
and it forces a sort
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
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 ;-)
--
Dr. Janis Voigtlaender
http://wwwtcs.inf.tu-dresden.de/~voigt/
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
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
On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 11:17 AM, Thomas Davie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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.
That rather depends what you intend to give, doesn't it? :-)
On 26 Sep 2008, at 12:28, Dougal Stanton wrote:
On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 11:17 AM, Thomas Davie [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
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.
That
Thomas Davie ha scritto:
[...]
Though the analogy is inapt, because the GPL *doesn't* prevent use of
software for things you don't like:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#NoMilitary
Sure it does -- it prevents the use of software for things that are
closed source.
What worse, is
On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 11:32 AM, Thomas Davie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sure it does -- it prevents the use of software for things that are closed
source.
Thing that are closed source is not a use of software. Programs
don't become more or less capable of designing rockets or writing
On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 12:07 PM, Dougal Stanton
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 11:32 AM, Thomas Davie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sure it does -- it prevents the use of software for things that are closed
source.
Thing that are closed source is not a use of software. Programs
Magnus Therning ha scritto:
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
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
Now I have fairly strong feelings about freedom of code and I
everything I release is either under GPL or LGPL. What I like about
those licenses is it protects freedom in a way that I think it should
I'm afraid I'll just be boring and make a recommendation:
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?
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
On Fri, 2008-09-26 at 18:45 +0200, Thomas Davie 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
On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 9:45 AM, 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
47 matches
Mail list logo
