On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 10:39 PM, Don Stewart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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.
AFAIU you could, but you'd have to supply linkable objects of your proprietary code so that others can relink with a newer version of the LGPL'd module. It's a pain for sure and I've found no instructions anywhere for how to do that. /M -- Magnus Therning (OpenPGP: 0xAB4DFBA4) magnus＠therning．org Jabber: magnus＠therning．org http://therning.org/magnus identi.ca|twitter: magthe
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
