Thinking about what's missing in our library coverage
dons at galois.com
Wed Aug 5 13:41:25 EDT 2009
> On 4 Aug 2009, at 23:05, Don Stewart wrote:
>> I would appreciate input from the HaXml and HDBC authors (our most
>> popular LGPL-licensed Haskell libraries) about what they feel the
>> licensing issues/constraints should be for the Haskell Platform.
> Licensing clarity is important for users I think. But equally some
> users may desire to use LGPL libraries too. Hence my suggestion that
> there be a separate platform of free/LGPL code (and GPL tools), which
> can depend on the proprietary-friendly BSD-licensed platform, but not
> the other way round.
>> I've not yet seen anyone publish something on how to satisfy LGPL
>> for Haskell libraries.
> The static-linking exception is the commonest means of working around
> ghc's technical limitations here. The exception is part of wxHaskell's
> license (but not Gtk2hs's), and HaXml (+polyparse on which it depends)
> has the exception too.
Ok. That's good to know. Perhaps in the cabal file for haxml you could
modify it to be license: Other than, and state somewhere that it is LGPL
with static linking exception.
Regarding a separate LGPL "non-free" platform, that will have to happen
further down the line.
More information about the Libraries