i have no intention to participate
in yet-another-licencing-discussion, i would just like to ask whether
those limitations of your offering are an accident or intended?
I didn't use the LGPL by accident. However, I might be amenable to
persuasion, perhaps more so if you climb down from that thing that looks
awfully like a high horse from here.
no horses here, apart from hobby-horses;-) some people write closed
software, some people write freed software, some people write free
software. authors choose their licenses, potential users use or stay away.
the somewhat pained tone of that email was because this was a library
i might have liked to use, hindered by two all too typical issues.
licensing is a question i don't want to be drawn into again. it was
predictable that some would be tempted to restart that thread (it has
been a recurring topic not just in haskell land, but many haskellers
have shown themselves flexible enough to converge, on bsd-style
short-and-sweet, with about two exceptions -readline and gmp-
remaining out of haskellers' control in the main libraries, and more
under similar external constraints in gui contexts:-), but as for
myself, i only wanted an answer to base my decision on, such as
the one you've just given.
portability is another matter, because here it has proven a lot easier
to avoid non-portable features from the word go than to write for
one's most familiar platform first, then worry about porting. where
that is not yet possible or easy, those limitations need to be raised,
so that they can be worked on, filepath being a recent example.
don't put me on a high horse just because i'd prefer another license
and am terribly tired of the discussion that tends to raise (i've been
there on all sides for hugs/ghc/../programatica/hare/.. !-).
claus
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
