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 fre
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 impor
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 e
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 11:35 AM, Ramana Kumar wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 8:09 PM, Michael Snoyman wrote:
>
>> 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 p
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 8:09 PM, Michael Snoyman wrote:
> 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 distributing them as
free
On Thu, 13 Dec 2012 08:58:07 +1100
Ramana Kumar 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 clarification: the G
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 10:14 AM, Colin Adams wrote:
> On 13 December 2012 08:09, Michael Snoyman 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 li
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 wrote:
> To take this out of the ac
On 13 December 2012 08:09, Michael Snoyman 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 web application
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
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, s
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 4:58 PM, Ramana Kumar wrote:
> 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
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 d
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 yoursel
+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 wrote:
> Since we've already heard from the agg
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 (L)G
On Wed, 12 Dec 2012 10:06:23 +0100 Petr P wrote:
> 2012/12/12 David Thomas
>
> 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 with a different version of the libr
2012/12/12 David Thomas
> 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 certainly worth being awar
18 matches
Mail list logo
