[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hutchison) writes:
> There are *two* GNU licenses. The GPL is meant for tools, like GHC, and
> would prevent certain uses of GHC. There is a second GNU license for
> libraries, called LGPL, and this is important. The runtime components of
> GHC should be licensed using the library license (just like the GNU
> runtimes are). Using both licenses appropriately would allow for the use
> of GHC in commercial software (as long as GHC itself was not included).
> Any improvements GHC or its runtime would still have to be made public
> by the commercial entity.
Sure, but what happens when someone wants to include GHC in a
commercial system? Do you really think they are going to provide
source code for the rest of the system? Perhaps they make some
modifications to GHC but don't want to release the ideas in source
form? Really, the GNU license is innapropriate for most commercial
use.
Don't get me wrong, I'm a free software fanatic. That's "free" as in
"freedom", not as in "you must give everyone your source code" (1/2 :-)
Cheers,
Simon
--
Simon Marlow [EMAIL PROTECTED]
University of Glasgow http://www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/~simonm/
finger for PGP public key
