On Tue, Jun 11, 2002 at 04:18:53PM +0100, Simon Marlow wrote:
> I think realistically we have to ditch readline for GHCi and
> use something with a friendlier license. BSD's libedit is
> a possibility.
Here are some less tragic solutions I can think of:
1. Dual-license GHC under _both_ the
On 12 Jun 2002, Alastair Reid wrote:
> The copyright holder(s) of a piece of software is free to change which
> license future copies are released under. It makes no difference
> whether the license is GPL, BSD, Artistic, Microsoft EULA, or
> whatever.
Yes.
> In other words, the GPL gives no mo
this is somewhat misleading, although the copyright holder may always
distribute their works under another license, they cannot retroactivly
change the license on previous releases. once something is gpl'ed it
always is. the author may also release it under other licenses, but the
gpled version is
> :) The question here is, are you (plural) really trying to write
> Free Software or just giving something away now, which will be
> closed and hogged later?
The copyright holder(s) of a piece of software is free to change which
license future copies are released under. It makes no difference
At 2002-06-11 08:18, Simon Marlow wrote:
>This is *so* annoying when all we're trying to do is write free software
>here.
This reminds me... who legally owns GHC?
* the University of Glasgow?
* Simon and Simon?
* Microsoft?
* many different people and institutions?
--
Ashley Yakel
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tuesday 11. June 2002 21:49, Wolfgang Thaller wrote:
> > I'm being provocative, I know. I'm not trying to insult though, just to
> > encourage a creative discussion.
>
> Me too. But I've never seen a flame war on any haskell list, so I trust
> that
I need to update the net package so that I can pass setSocketOption IP_TTL.
This is a one line change. I'm using 5.02.2. There weren't any versions of
Socket.hsc tagged as 5.02.2 in the CVS repository but there was one tagged
Revision 1.2 / (download) - annotate - [select for diffs] , Fri Aug 17
I'm being provocative, I know. I'm not trying to insult though, just to
encourage a creative discussion.
Me too. But I've never seen a flame war on any haskell list, so I trust that no one will be insulted if we present our differing opinions in a strong way. We'll just have to take this discussi
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tuesday 11. June 2002 19:58, Sigbjorn Finne wrote:
> "Sven Moritz Hallberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> ...
>
> > 2) I read a comment somewhere (in some script or so) saying something
>
> along
>
> > the lines of "once we are cross-compiling
"Sven Moritz Hallberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
...
> 2) I read a comment somewhere (in some script or so) saying something
along
> the lines of "once we are cross-compiling". Are there plans to make GHC
able
> to cross-compile?
>
That remark was put in there by GHC hall-of-famer Will "C
"Simon Marlow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> But we do have to make GHCi "available under the GPL" whatever that
> means.
I assume it means I must be allowed to take GHCi and re-release it
with modifications under GPL only.
> Actually I'm dubious about the notion of compatible licenses - I
> r
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
OK, here it is. The GHC ebuild for Gentoo Linux has been incorporated in the
official package tree (search http://www.gentoo.org/index-packages.html)!
This means that it is available to anyone running Gentoo, so you can now
safely claim to run on t
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tuesday 11. June 2002 17:18, Simon Marlow wrote:
> > I have a problem with the readline license that applies to ghc, and
> > programs compiled with ghc.
> >
> > The readline library is under the GPL license. This means that any
> > program (includi
Can anyone help? I would like to run a program using the Haskell
Graphics Library under GHC on Windows. HGL is listed as a package
(when ghc is asked about its packages) but not actually distributed
as a package with ghc-5.02.3. On trying to remedy this,
- I am able to compile HGL by
> I have a problem with the readline license that applies to ghc, and
> programs compiled with ghc.
>
> The readline library is under the GPL license. This means that any
> program (including ghc) that links with this library must itself be
> licensed under the GPL.
*G*
Yes, you're right.
> And there's a problem: ghc-pkg uses Read, and that requires all the
> fields to be there. It would be a Bad Idea to force everyone
> to update
> every single package.conf file out there. Is there any special reason
> why it doesn't use the ParsePkgConf.y parser from
> compiler/main? (Simon:
Title: Lucky Nugget Online Casino
Download the free Lucky Nugget Online Casino? software,open a real account, and you will get $10 ABSOLUTELYFREE - No Purchase Required!Then purchase $100 and you'll get another $100 BONUS!
Having Read the GPL license one solution for binary distributions may be to
install in two packages - one for any GPL'd stuff, and one for the rest - if
these
are aggregated onto the same media the GPL only applies to the originally
GPL'd
stuff. This would be enough if the libraries are dynamical
I have a problem with the readline license that applies to ghc, and
programs compiled with ghc.
The readline library is under the GPL license. This means that any
program (including ghc) that links with this library must itself be
licensed under the GPL.
This is very unfortunate. I would suspect
On Dienstag, Juni 11, 2002, at 09:22 , Ashley Yakeley wrote:
> They solve a similar problem in a quite different way. [...]
> I think Wolfgang means [...]
Exactly.
> [...] add new package specification components, such as
> "frameworks" and "frameworks_dir". They just need to be passed on to th
At 2002-06-10 04:03, Simon Marlow wrote:
>It sounds like frameworks are similar in concept to GHC's packages.
They solve a similar problem in a quite different way. A framework is a
"bundle": an actual directory with everything inside it, libraries,
header files, localised strings, whatever, w
21 matches
Mail list logo
