Duncan Coutts wrote:
On Thu, 2007-08-16 at 14:22 +0100, Brian Hulley wrote:
.. For example, the LGPL requires you to give permission to people
to reverse engineer your application... thus it may
not even be possible for me to comply with the terms of the LGPL.
>From the LGPL v3:
You may convey a Combined Work under terms of your choice that,
taken together, effectively do not restrict modification of the
portions of the Library contained in the Combined Work and
reverse engineering for debugging such modifications, if you
also do each of the following:
[list of stuff you have to do]
So it looks like you only have not restrict reverse engineering for the
purposes of making updated GMP libs work with your program. Since the MS
Runtime components do not interact directly with the GMP at all you
shouldn't need to grant users the right to reverse engineer those
components. Indeed it's only ghc library and rts code that would
interact with gmp.dll.
Thanks for suggesting that. It sounds reasonable though I tend to get a
bit paranoid when it comes to legal things - will the FSF agree with the
above interpretation etc.
BTW, I don't think it should be too hard to construct a notice that
indicates that portions of the work are covered by specific copyright
licences, the details of which are available. After all Microsoft have
dozens of these notices for various bits of BSD code they use and nobody
mistakes Windows for Free software.
True, but if there's any chance of just getting rid of the GMP
altogether from a version of GHC there would be no tricky issues when it
comes to distributing proprietary apps, thus potentially increasing
GHC's user base, making Haskell more popular, and hopefully leading to
more BSD3 libs being written by those new users... ;-)
Best regards, Brian.
_______________________________________________
Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
