Brandon Allbery
Haskell libraries are mostly BSD licensed, as is GHC itself. (Oddly enough, GPL is not the only open source license.)
btw, what about GHC's reliance on the LGPLed GMP library? Doesn't that already taint the whole GHC eco-system? Quoting [1]: | GMP is licensed under the GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL), a | kind of "copyleft" license. According to the terms of the LGPL, | paragraph 5, you may distribute a program that is designed to be | compiled and dynamically linked with the library under the terms of | your choice (i.e., commercially) but if your program incorporates | portions of the library, if it is linked statically, then your program | is a "derivative"--a "work based on the library"--and according to | paragraph 2, section c, you "must cause the whole of the work to be | licensed" under the terms of the LGPL (including for free). | | The LGPL licensing for GMP is a problem for the overall licensing of | binary programs compiled with GHC because most distributions (and | builds) of GHC use static libraries. (Dynamic libraries are currently | distributed only for OS X.) The LGPL licensing situation may be worse: | even though The Glasgow Haskell Compiler License is essentially a | "free software" license (BSD3), according to paragraph 2 of the LGPL, | GHC must be distributed under the terms of the LGPL! [1]: http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/ghc/wiki/ReplacingGMPNotes#ReasonsforReplaci... cheers, hvr