On Nov 15, 2006, at 1:16 PM, Bulat Ziganshin wrote:
Wednesday, November 15, 2006, 9:08:16 AM, Peter Tanski wrote:
this is again more aesthetic than real problem - code compiled by
GPL'ed tools is not GPL'ed
True. I should add a few notes: I did not mean to imply that merely
distributing mingw with GHC in the same package would create a
licensing problem; I also think I overstated it a bit: mingw is
public domain but mingw development tools are GPL--o.k. to use, of
course--but the libraries (libgcc, libgcov) are LGPL, so static
linkage to the libraries makes the resulting code LGPL.
if this is true, this means a problem for existing GHC that creates
mingw-compiled executables. but for ghc that will use MS libraries
coming with CL, this is not a problem again - we can use
mingw-compiled perl and other *tools* because this don't mean that
resulting program will use mingw *libs*
There is actually a conflict here: the gcc distribution, at <http://
gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/trunk/>, COPYING.LIB is the LGPL but the
copyright referenced in the source code (from the main source
distribution directory: gcc/libgcc2.h), at <http://gcc.gnu.org/svn/
gcc/trunk/gcc/libgcc2.h> is the GPL with a special exception for
*any* linkage (dynamic or static). I am not sure which license
controls, so I tend to stick with the LGPL since it is effectively
more restrictive. The best way to resolve this would be to write the
FSF. I am going to do that right away.
Cheers,
Peter Tanski
_______________________________________________
Cvs-ghc mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-ghc
