Re: RFC: "Native -XCPP" Proposal

On 05/19/2015 11:04 AM, Boespflug, Mathieu wrote:

On 19 May 2015 at 08:26, Bardur Arantsson wrote:

...

...

I imagine your ghc build uses gcc to invoke the system assembler and

On 05/19/2015 07:31 AM, Carter Schonwald wrote: linker

...

on your Linux servers, :-) and that's gplv3!

That is of no consequence licensing-wise since those are

a) separate programs/executables, thus "derived work" doesn't enter into it at any level, except...

b) if the output contains bits of of the programs themselves, but e.g. gcc (and one assumes the linker, etc.) have specific licensing exemptions for the output.

(And this *is* something that you can quickly explain to the lawyerly types.)

Both conditions likewise hold true for cpphs-as-an-external-process-bundled-with-GHC. So any particular remaining concern there?

Not from me, certainly. I was just trying to point out that the example given (Linux, gcc, ...) was invalid. I would be more worried about e.g. Linux distributions *if* cpphs were under some weird license, but since it's LGPL that shouldn't prompt any issues. (We're talking "mere aggregation" in the terms used in the GPL.) As always, IANAL and in particular I am not *your* or anybody else's lawyer :). Regards,