-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Wolfgang Jeltsch wrote:
> Am Donnerstag, 2. Oktober 2008 20:33 schrieben Sie:
>> Wolfgang Jeltsch wrote:
>>> You mean shared libraries without the opportunity to inline library code?
>>> This would result in a huge performance loss, I think.
>> Usually
On Fri, 2008-10-03 at 10:08 -0700, David Leimbach wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 4:36 AM, minh thu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2008/10/3 Mitchell, Neil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> >
> > Hi
> >
> >
> >> > > You mean shared libraries witho
On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 4:36 AM, minh thu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2008/10/3 Mitchell, Neil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
> > Hi
> >
> >
> >> > > You mean shared libraries without the opportunity to
> >> inline library code?
> >> > > This would result in a huge performance loss, I think.
> >> >
> >>
Am Freitag, 3. Oktober 2008 13:36 schrieben Sie:
> […]
> What happens in the C++ world where good chunk of functionnalities are
> in header files (templates or inline methods);
> is there the same LGPL problem that the one discussed here w.r.t.
> static/shared linking ?
I've never heard about pro
2008/10/3 Mitchell, Neil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> Hi
>
>
>> > > You mean shared libraries without the opportunity to
>> inline library code?
>> > > This would result in a huge performance loss, I think.
>> >
>> > Usually _mild_ performance loss, in exchange for major code-size
>> > savings, I would
Hi
> > > You mean shared libraries without the opportunity to
> inline library code?
> > > This would result in a huge performance loss, I think.
> >
> > Usually _mild_ performance loss, in exchange for major code-size
> > savings, I would think. C obviously has worked quite fine under
> > ex
Hello Don,
Friday, October 3, 2008, 2:22:49 AM, you wrote:
>> and type classes. once i've forget to addinline pragma, my program
>> (serializing arrays) becomes 200x slower. it was due to use of
>> hieararchy of several type classes. afaiu, their dictionaries are also
>> lazily evaluated plus we
bulat.ziganshin:
> Hello Wolfgang,
>
> Thursday, October 2, 2008, 11:25:52 PM, you wrote:
>
> >> > You mean shared libraries without the opportunity to inline library code?
> >> > This would result in a huge performance loss, I think.
> >>
> >> Usually _mild_ performance loss, in exchange for maj
Hello Wolfgang,
Thursday, October 2, 2008, 11:25:52 PM, you wrote:
>> > You mean shared libraries without the opportunity to inline library code?
>> > This would result in a huge performance loss, I think.
>>
>> Usually _mild_ performance loss, in exchange for major code-size
>> savings, I would
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 11:25 AM, Wolfgang Jeltsch <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Am Dienstag, 30. September 2008 00:18 schrieb Duncan Coutts:
> > Yet another reason for getting dynamic linking / shared libs for Haskell
> > packages working reliably on all platforms.
>
> You mean shared libraries wi
Am Donnerstag, 2. Oktober 2008 20:33 schrieben Sie:
> Wolfgang Jeltsch wrote:
> > You mean shared libraries without the opportunity to inline library code?
> > This would result in a huge performance loss, I think.
>
> Usually _mild_ performance loss, in exchange for major code-size
> savings, I wo
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Wolfgang Jeltsch wrote:
> Am Dienstag, 30. September 2008 00:18 schrieb Duncan Coutts:
>> Yet another reason for getting dynamic linking / shared libs for Haskell
>> packages working reliably on all platforms.
>
> You mean shared libraries without the
Am Dienstag, 30. September 2008 00:18 schrieb Duncan Coutts:
> Yet another reason for getting dynamic linking / shared libs for Haskell
> packages working reliably on all platforms.
You mean shared libraries without the opportunity to inline library code?
This would result in a huge performance
"Jeremy O'Donoghue" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Therefore, I have to say that for at least some commercial users, LGPL
> will never be acceptable, and GPL is actually more acceptable because we
> know for sure what obligations it places on us.
I don't see how this can be, since according to cla
On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 14:39:33 -0700, "Don Stewart" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
said:
> 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
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 t
Don Stewart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 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.
As already mentioned, you can ask the author nicely for a differe
On Mon, 2008-09-29 at 14:39 -0700, Don Stewart wrote:
> 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 librar
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 real
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 get
On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 4:06 AM, Michael Giagnocavo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Goal 2 (The "open source" angle): Developers who use the library
>>should have to contribute their modifications of the library back to
>>the community. I believe that it's wrong to use a license to try to
>>enforce su
"Bit Connor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I believe that it's wrong to use a license to try to enforce such
> cooperation. Look what happened with KHTML when Apple started using
> it for their Safari web browser.
I haven't followed this in detail, but I think that, even when a
company is relucta
>Goal 2 (The "open source" angle): Developers who use the library
>should have to contribute their modifications of the library back to
>the community. I believe that it's wrong to use a license to try to
>enforce such cooperation. Look what happened with KHTML when Apple
>started using it for thei
I'm going to give my take on the LGPL, but even though this isn't a
direct answer to your question, please read because it's especially
relevant in your case where you would like to allow static linking.
The way I see it, the LGPL tries to accomplish two separate goals:
Goal 1 (The FSF angle): Us
On 26 Sep 2008, at 08:24, Magnus Therning wrote:
I've heard that the OCaml crowd uses a modified LGPL with a static
linking exception. Unfortunately I've also heard that their addition
to LGPL hasn't gotten much review by lawyers, I'd much rather use
something that feels less ad hoc, if you get
On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 12:20 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[..]
> The risk in picking yet another licence, one that satisfies your
> opinions on software freedom, is even more confusion. If the usual
> BSD-like licence doesn't do it for you, I would be concerned about
> adding yet another licen
G'day all.
Quoting Magnus Therning:
Recently I received an email with a question regarding the licensing
of a module I've written and uploaded to Hackage. I released it under
LGPL. The sender wondered if I would consider re-licensing the code
under BSD (or something similar) that would remove
Hello Magnus,
Saturday, September 27, 2008, 3:48:27 PM, you wrote:
> AFAIU you are saying that the linker is reaching into the module's .a
> file, pulling out the .o file, and then reaching into that .o file to
> pull out an individual function's ASM code. I believe that's a bit more
> than regu
Wolfgang Jeltsch wrote:
> Am Freitag, 26. September 2008 09:24 schrieb Magnus Therning:
>
>> Recently I received an email with a question regarding the licensing
>> of a module I've written and uploaded to Hackage. I released it under
>> LGPL. The sender wondered if I would consider re-licensi
On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 9:45 AM, Thomas Davie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 26 Sep 2008, at 17:51, Jonathan Cast wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2008-09-26 at 12:17 +0200, Thomas Davie wrote:
>>
>>> On 26 Sep 2008, at 12:12, Janis Voigtlaender wrote:
>>>
>>> Manlio Perillo wrote:
> When I compar
On Fri, 2008-09-26 at 18:45 +0200, Thomas Davie wrote:
> On 26 Sep 2008, at 17:51, Jonathan Cast wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 2008-09-26 at 12:17 +0200, Thomas Davie wrote:
> >> On 26 Sep 2008, at 12:12, Janis Voigtlaender wrote:
> >>
> >>> Manlio Perillo wrote:
> When I compare GPL and MIT/BSD licen
On 26 Sep 2008, at 17:51, Jonathan Cast wrote:
On Fri, 2008-09-26 at 12:17 +0200, Thomas Davie wrote:
On 26 Sep 2008, at 12:12, Janis Voigtlaender wrote:
Manlio Perillo wrote:
When I compare GPL and MIT/BSD licenses, I do a simple reasoning.
Suppose a doctor in a battle field meet a badly i
On Fri, 2008-09-26 at 12:17 +0200, Thomas Davie wrote:
> On 26 Sep 2008, at 12:12, Janis Voigtlaender wrote:
>
> > Manlio Perillo wrote:
> >> When I compare GPL and MIT/BSD licenses, I do a simple reasoning.
> >> Suppose a doctor in a battle field meet a badly injuried enemy.
> >> Should he help t
> Now I have fairly strong feelings about freedom of code and I
> everything I release is either under GPL or LGPL. What I like about
> those licenses is it protects freedom in a way that I think it should
I'm afraid I'll just be boring and make a recommendation:
http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/mpl-fa
Am Freitag, 26. September 2008 09:24 schrieb Magnus Therning:
> Recently I received an email with a question regarding the licensing
> of a module I've written and uploaded to Hackage. I released it under
> LGPL. The sender wondered if I would consider re-licensing the code
> under BSD (or someth
Magnus Therning ha scritto:
Recently I received an email with a question regarding the licensing
of a module I've written and uploaded to Hackage. I released it under
LGPL. The sender wondered if I would consider re-licensing the code
under BSD (or something similar) that would remove the need
On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 12:07 PM, Dougal Stanton
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 11:32 AM, Thomas Davie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Sure it does -- it prevents the use of software for things that are closed
>> source.
>
> "Thing that are closed source" is not a use of softw
On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 11:32 AM, Thomas Davie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sure it does -- it prevents the use of software for things that are closed
> source.
"Thing that are closed source" is not a use of software. Programs
don't become more or less capable of designing rockets or writing
subv
Thomas Davie ha scritto:
[...]
Though the analogy is inapt, because the GPL *doesn't* prevent use of
software for "things you don't like":
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#NoMilitary
Sure it does -- it prevents the use of software for things that are
closed source.
What worse, is
On 26 Sep 2008, at 12:28, Dougal Stanton wrote:
On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 11:17 AM, Thomas Davie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Should you decide not to give someone something based on the fact
that you
either don't like them, or don't like what they'll do with the
thing you
give them.
That
On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 11:17 AM, Thomas Davie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Should you decide not to give someone something based on the fact that you
> either don't like them, or don't like what they'll do with the thing you
> give them.
That rather depends what you intend to give, doesn't it? :
Thomas Davie wrote:
On 26 Sep 2008, at 12:12, Janis Voigtlaender wrote:
Manlio Perillo wrote:
When I compare GPL and MIT/BSD licenses, I do a simple reasoning.
Suppose a doctor in a battle field meet a badly injuried enemy.
Should he help the enemy?
I'm so glad I don't understand this ;-)
On 26 Sep 2008, at 12:12, Janis Voigtlaender wrote:
Manlio Perillo wrote:
When I compare GPL and MIT/BSD licenses, I do a simple reasoning.
Suppose a doctor in a battle field meet a badly injuried enemy.
Should he help the enemy?
I'm so glad I don't understand this ;-)
Should you decide no
Manlio Perillo wrote:
When I compare GPL and MIT/BSD licenses, I do a simple reasoning.
Suppose a doctor in a battle field meet a badly injuried enemy.
Should he help the enemy?
I'm so glad I don't understand this ;-)
--
Dr. Janis Voigtlaender
http://wwwtcs.inf.tu-dresden.de/~voigt/
mailto:[EM
Colin Paul Adams ha scritto:
"Thomas" == Thomas Davie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Thomas> Sorry, this isn't the most relevant comment to the
Thomas> discussion, but I thought I'd add my own thought re the
Thomas> gpl/lgpl. My personal feeling is that the point of open
Thomas>
On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 9:12 AM, Thomas Davie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Now I have fairly strong feelings about freedom of code and I
>> everything I release is either under GPL or LGPL. What I like about
>> those licenses is it protects freedom in a way that I think it should
>> and it forces
> "Thomas" == Thomas Davie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Thomas> Sorry, this isn't the most relevant comment to the
Thomas> discussion, but I thought I'd add my own thought re the
Thomas> gpl/lgpl. My personal feeling is that the point of open
Thomas> source is to allow people
Now I have fairly strong feelings about freedom of code and I
everything I release is either under GPL or LGPL. What I like about
those licenses is it protects freedom in a way that I think it should
and it forces a sort of reciprocity which resonates very well with my
selfishness. Re-licensing
Recently I received an email with a question regarding the licensing
of a module I've written and uploaded to Hackage. I released it under
LGPL. The sender wondered if I would consider re-licensing the code
under BSD (or something similar) that would remove the need for users
to provide linkable
49 matches
Mail list logo
