Am Donnerstag, 26. Februar 2009 21:39 schrieb Peter Hercek:
The acceptable size of inlined fuctions for a C code is about 10 lines.
I did not read any info how it would be for Haskell.
At least, GHC inlines very massively, to my knowledge. And I think you need
this massive inlining for
Am Donnerstag, 26. Februar 2009 20:20 schrieb Achim Schneider:
Wolfgang Jeltsch g9ks1...@acme.softbase.org wrote:
Am Donnerstag, 26. Februar 2009 09:17 schrieb Ketil Malde:
Peter Hercek pher...@gmail.com writes:
Relinking against newer Gtk2Hs versions might not work.
You have the
Peter Hercek pher...@gmail.com writes:
Relinking against newer Gtk2Hs versions might not work.
You have the option of recompiling the new Gtk2Hs with the old GHC and
relinking, don't you?
I want to repeat what I’ve said earlier on this list: For Haskell,
there is no real difference between
Hi all,
An easy thing to do here would be to get a written statement from the
author about the interpretation with regard to what you intend to do -
like Duncan posted.
AFAIK this only works when the code has a single author (or, you get a written
statement from each author). In practice, many
Am Mittwoch, 25. Februar 2009 23:38 schrieb Peter Hercek:
So my opinion (IAMNAL):
1) source code under very limiting commercial license (just to allow
recompile with a newer LGPL lib and nothing else) is OK
2) it is probable that only the *.o, *.hi files and a linking script are
OK too
I
Am Donnerstag, 26. Februar 2009 09:17 schrieb Ketil Malde:
Peter Hercek pher...@gmail.com writes:
Relinking against newer Gtk2Hs versions might not work.
You have the option of recompiling the new Gtk2Hs with the old GHC and
relinking, don't you?
Relinking is technically not possible
The Mozilla Public License is superior to LGPL for this purpose: it
still forces you to release any modifications, while clearly allowing
bundling and commercial sales of software that includes MPL code.
MPL is a good fit if you want to ensure improvements get contributed
back to the
Wolfgang Jeltsch g9ks1...@acme.softbase.org wrote:
Am Donnerstag, 26. Februar 2009 09:17 schrieb Ketil Malde:
Peter Hercek pher...@gmail.com writes:
Relinking against newer Gtk2Hs versions might not work.
You have the option of recompiling the new Gtk2Hs with the old GHC
and
Wolfgang Jeltsch wrote:
Am Mittwoch, 25. Februar 2009 23:38 schrieb Peter Hercek:
So my opinion (IAMNAL):
1) source code under very limiting commercial license (just to allow
recompile with a newer LGPL lib and nothing else) is OK
2) it is probable that only the *.o, *.hi files and a linking
Wolfgang Jeltsch wrote:
I want to repeat what I’ve said earlier on this list: For Haskell, there is no
real difference between LGPL and GPL, as far as I understand it. If you don’t
want to force the users of your library to use an open source license for
their work then use BSD3 or a similar
On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 11:02 PM, Peter Hercek pher...@gmail.com wrote:
* An LGPL library will force commercial users to release their source code
only to the users of their program (which already bought it) and only for
the purpose of recompiling with a newer version of the LGPL library.
* Peter Verswyvelen bugf...@gmail.com [2009-02-25 23:15:24 +0100]:
On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 11:02 PM, Peter Hercek pher...@gmail.com wrote:
* An LGPL library will force commercial users to release their source code
only to the users of their program (which already bought it) and only for
Peter Verswyvelen wrote:
On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 11:02 PM, Peter Hercek pher...@gmail.com wrote:
* An LGPL library will force commercial users to release their source code
only to the users of their program (which already bought it) and only for
the purpose of recompiling with a newer
So that is interesting. If you don't distribute a program that makes use of
LPGL libs (e.g. a downloadable EXE), but you provide a remote view (in this
case a web) on a server that runs that program, then the license does not
apply...
Oh well I should just let the lawyers look into all these
Peter Verswyvelen bugf...@gmail.com wrote:
So that is interesting. If you don't distribute a program that makes
use of LPGL libs (e.g. a downloadable EXE), but you provide a remote
view (in this case a web) on a server that runs that program, then
the license does not apply...
Oh well I
15 matches
Mail list logo
