brian wrote:
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 8:54 PM, Stefan Monnier
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
That still leaves anyone free to use LGPL if they want to, but please
don't assume that it allows commercial use by all potential users.
It *does* allow commercial use. Your example just shows that some
people may decide not to take advantage of it, based not on problematic
restrictions but just on paranoia.
I was confused and worried about this subject lately, too; at some
point in the future, I may want to ship closed-source commercial
software that uses various LGPL libraries. But it doesn't seem to be
as big a problem as I imagined. My understanding is that I can satisfy
the requirements of the LGPL by dynamically linking, and that's
already happening.
Dynamic linking doesn't solve all the problems, we still have the
problem that GHC does a lot of cross-module inlining, regardless of
whether dynamic linking is used. However, I really would like to have a
way to have complete control over what is exposed across a package
boundary. We need this not just for licensing reasons, but also for
making a dynamic library with a fixed ABI, so it can be upgraded later.
Incedentally the lack of this feature is one reason I've not being
rushing to get shared libraries into GHC. They're just not that useful
unless you can upgrade a library independently of the things it depends on.
Cheers,
Simon
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
