I asked that on SO: http://programmers.stackexchange.com/q/179084/61231 So far the best answer is wxWidget's license (LGPL + linking exception) which at least has been approved by OSI (although FSF approval would have been better).
Best regards, Petr 2012/12/12 Ivan Lazar Miljenovic <ivan.miljeno...@gmail.com> > On 12 December 2012 12:57, Nicolas Trangez <nico...@incubaid.com> wrote: > > Note: IANAL > > > > On Tue, 2012-12-11 at 17:45 -0800, David Thomas wrote: > >> On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 5:35 PM, Brandon Allbery <allber...@gmail.com > >wrote: > >> > >> > (Oddly enough, GPL is not the only open source license.) > >> > >> There was no implication to the contrary. It was stated that BSD is a > >> *weaker* license - this is true in the sense that it has fewer > requirements > >> (in particular, no copyleft) - and that "strong copyleft" licenses such > as > >> the GPL should be preferred as they do more to bolster the free software > >> community. You can disagree with this claim (there are arguments both > ways > >> - delving into them is not my point here) but please try not to bring in > >> straw men. > > > > Actually the library is made available under the LGPL-3 license, > > according to its README, not the GPL (although the latter is implicit, > > of course). > > > > In the Haskell world this does have a different effect compared to when > > one uses the LGPL for, say, a C library though, since (at least for now) > > GHC uses/defaults to static linking, which IIRC (though IANAL) turns the > > LGPL into GPL, so this has a severe impact for application authors. This > > might be something people aren't aware of when releasing Haskell > > libraries using the LGPL. > > > > I tend to use the LGPL myself for most library-style projects, and do so > > as well for Haskell code (although I'm aware of the drawbacks), but I'm > > perfectly fine with people linking the libs statically as long as they > > comply to the license "as if they were using dynamic loading". > > > > If anyone knows some standard license which boils down to "obligations > > like LGPL but OK for static linking as well", please let me know. > > I too would like such a license; however, the closest I've seen is > LGPL + linking exception (which I believe is the license Malcolm > Wallace uses for the cpphs library, though not the executable). > > > > > Nicolas > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Haskell-Cafe mailing list > > Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org > > http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe > > > > -- > Ivan Lazar Miljenovic > ivan.miljeno...@gmail.com > http://IvanMiljenovic.wordpress.com > > _______________________________________________ > Haskell-Cafe mailing list > Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org > http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe >
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe