Yitzchak Gale wrote:
Bulat Ziganshin wrote:
for me, GMP is much more problematic issue. strictly speaking, we can't say that GHC is BSD-licensed because it includes LGPL-licensed code (and that much worse, it includes this code in run-time libs)
Manuel M T Chakravarty wrote:
..binary distributions of GHC that include libgmp.a and statically link it into compiled code... All that is needed to make this legal is to (a)... (b) give users access to another version of the proprietary program that links GMP dynamically.
Wow, I didn't realize that. Now I understand Bulat. In a project of any serious size and complexity, the use of static or dynamic linking is often architechted in and cannot be changed.
(b) is a sufficient condition, but not necessary; there are other ways to satisfy the license. It's also possible to just distribute, for example, the .o file(s) and a way to link them with a GMP to get the final result; this doesn't even reveal your source-code any more than your program being dynamically linked, at least if you do it right -- right? ~Isaac