magnus: > 2008/9/29 Bit Connor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > [..] > > Basically it seems to me that you believe in the benevolence and > enligtenment of companies. Something I don't. I believe you are > right in splitting the LGPL into two different objectives, and you are > right in saying that I really only care about getting changes back. > > > So in summary, if user freedom is important, then GPL is the way to > > go. If it's about encouraging the submission of patches and > > contributions, then the license won't help you, you simply have to > > rely on the good will of people. (But BSD will allow for a larger > > community) > > Well, I'm not convinced about this. I fail to see how your use of > Apple is an example of this. Yes, they clearly didn't get it in the > beginning, but now there seems to be a vibrant community around > Webkit. Just as a point of comparison, did they do any better (in the > beginning) with the BSD licensed code they use? I sure haven't heard > anything along those lines anyways. >
The big problem with the LGPL and Haskell is static linking. We can't use anything we wish to ship commercially that relies on LGPLd-statically linked-and-inlined Haskell code at the moment. So if you use LGPL for your Haskell libraries, all of which are currently statically linked and non-replaceable at runtime, it is unlikely any commercial Haskell house can use the code. Note that this *isn't* the case for C libraries, which are dynamically linked, like libgmp, which is just fine. This is why the OCaml guys use their untested LGPL+static linking exception, I guess. -- Don _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe