That very much mirrors my experience. As there is not settled case law
in all jurisdictions many companies would simply rather not risk it.
Simply having a court in the US set some precedents would not be
enough. A company which operated globally could be sued in many
different venues which are
Hi Felipe,
thanks for making me think about the licenses. Without your suggestion, I
wouldn't be aware of problems LGPL might cause for Haskell projects. And
I'm considering the possibility of using BSD (or a similar) license in the
future.
I'm aware of the issues you pointed out. As you say,
To take this out of the academic realm and into the real-life realm: I've
actually done projects for companies which have corporate policies
disallowing the usage of any copyleft licenses in their toolset. My use
case was a web application, which would not have been affected by a GPL
library usage
On 13 December 2012 08:09, Michael Snoyman mich...@snoyman.com wrote:
To take this out of the academic realm and into the real-life realm: I've
actually done projects for companies which have corporate policies
disallowing the usage of any copyleft licenses in their toolset. My use
case was a
Let me just chime in to give my 2 cents; I quote Micheal 100%; if we want
to push Haskell out of the academic/open source world to the real world,
well, GPL is not the way to go, due to its viral nature.
Cheers,
A.
On 13 December 2012 08:09, Michael Snoyman mich...@snoyman.com wrote:
To take
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 10:14 AM, Colin Adams colinpaulad...@gmail.comwrote:
On 13 December 2012 08:09, Michael Snoyman mich...@snoyman.com wrote:
To take this out of the academic realm and into the real-life realm: I've
actually done projects for companies which have corporate policies
On Thu, 13 Dec 2012 08:58:07 +1100
Ramana Kumar ramana.ku...@cl.cam.ac.uk wrote:
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 5:36 AM, Felipe Almeida Lessa
felipe.le...@gmail.com wrote:
A GPLed containers forces the library user to somehow get a way of
complying to the license.
The language here needs some
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 8:09 PM, Michael Snoyman mich...@snoyman.comwrote:
I also don't think that distributing programs is as small a market as you
think, and should also be something we support for commercial users of
Haskell.
Distributing programs commercially is compatible with
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 11:35 AM, Ramana Kumar ramana.ku...@cl.cam.ac.ukwrote:
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 8:09 PM, Michael Snoyman mich...@snoyman.comwrote:
I also don't think that distributing programs is as small a market as you
think, and should also be something we support for commercial
Outside of the Valley and FOSS movement, programs are still usually
distributed as binaries.
For example, I have a secret, dirty desire to write a game in Haskell. This
would be closed source, and if I'd have to rewrite most of the supporting
libraries, it would be a nonstarter.
Plus, it's hard
Alfredo Di Napoli alfredo.dinap...@gmail.com writes:
Let me just chime in to give my 2 cents; I quote Micheal 100%; if we want
to push Haskell out of the academic/open source world to the real world,
well, GPL is not the way to go, due to its viral nature.
just to throw in a different
On 12/13/12 3:14 AM, Colin Adams wrote:
Presumably you are talking about companies who want to distribute programs
(a very small minority of companies, I would think)?
Not at all. In addition to Michael's own rebuttal, I'll add my own.
There are many companies which *fear* the L/GPL. The
On 12/13/12 9:30 AM, Herbert Valerio Riedel wrote:
Alfredo Di Napoli alfredo.dinap...@gmail.com writes:
Let me just chime in to give my 2 cents; I quote Micheal 100%; if we want
to push Haskell out of the academic/open source world to the real world,
well, GPL is not the way to go, due to its
2012/12/12 David Thomas davidleotho...@gmail.com
IANAL, but reviewing what others have written, it sounds like it may be
possible to maintain *some* distinction between LGPL and GPL in Haskell,
but it's a different distinction than with an LGPL shared library, so even
if applicable it's
On Wed, 12 Dec 2012 10:06:23 +0100 Petr P petr@gmail.com wrote:
2012/12/12 David Thomas davidleotho...@gmail.com
Yet another solution would be
what David Thomas suggest: To provide the source code to your users,
but don't allow them to use the code for anything but relinking the
program
Since we've already heard from the aggressive (L)GPL side of this debate,
I think it's time for someone to provide the opposite opinion.
I write code to help users. However, as a library designer, my users are
programmers just like me. Writing my Haskell libraries with restrictions
like the
+1
Very similar to my point (see original thread), but put in a better way. :)
As an interesting coincidence, this exact thing happened to someone
just now. (thread containers license issue)
Jonathan
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 5:00 PM, Clark Gaebel cgae...@uwaterloo.ca wrote:
Since we've already
When deciding what license to use, I think one should also think about
the role of their library. For example, containers is quite central
to the Haskell community and not easily replaceable. The tie-knot
library, OTOH, may be rewritten from scratch or even just skipped
(just tie the knot
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 5:36 AM, Felipe Almeida Lessa
felipe.le...@gmail.com wrote:
A GPLed containers forces the library user to somehow get a way of
complying to the license.
The language here needs some clarification: the GPL (or other free copyleft
license) only forces someone to do
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 4:58 PM, Ramana Kumar ramana.ku...@cl.cam.ac.ukwrote:
Using it has the advantage of offering a reason to push those on the fence
about whether to make their software free.
As has already been pointed out, definitions of free differ.
--
brandon s allbery kf8nh
20 matches
Mail list logo
