Exactly. My post was an attempt to elicit response from anyone to whom it matters. There is no point in worrying about hypothetical licensing problems - let's hear about the real ones. Regards, Malcolm On 7 May 2015, at 22:15, Tomas Carnecky wrote:

That doesn't mean those people don't exist. Maybe they do but are too afraid to speak up (due to corporate policy or whatever).

On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 10:41 PM, Malcolm Wallace wrote: I also note that in this discussion, so far not a single person has said that the cpphs licence would actually be a problem for them.

Regards, Malcolm

On 7 May 2015, at 20:54, Herbert Valerio Riedel wrote:

...

On 2015-05-06 at 13:38:16 +0200, Jan Stolarek wrote:

[...]

...

Regarding licensing issues: perhaps we should simply ask Malcolm Wallace if he would consider changing the license for the sake of GHC? Or perhaps he could grant a custom-tailored license to the GHC project? After all, the project page [1] says: " If that's a problem for you, contact me to make other arrangements."

Fyi, Neil talked to him[1]:

| I talked to Malcolm. His contention is that it doesn't actually change | the license of the ghc package. As such, it's just a single extra | license to add to a directory full of licenses, which is no big deal.

[1]: http://www.reddit.com/r/haskell/comments/351pur/rfc_native_xcpp_for_ghc_prop...

_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe