i have no intention to participate in yet-another-licencing-discussion, i would just like to ask whether those limitations of your offering are an accident or intended?
I didn't use the LGPL by accident. However, I might be amenable to persuasion, perhaps more so if you climb down from that thing that looks awfully like a high horse from here.
no horses here, apart from hobby-horses;-) some people write closed software, some people write freed software, some people write free software. authors choose their licenses, potential users use or stay away. the somewhat pained tone of that email was because this was a library i might have liked to use, hindered by two all too typical issues. licensing is a question i don't want to be drawn into again. it was predictable that some would be tempted to restart that thread (it has been a recurring topic not just in haskell land, but many haskellers have shown themselves flexible enough to converge, on bsd-style short-and-sweet, with about two exceptions -readline and gmp- remaining out of haskellers' control in the main libraries, and more under similar external constraints in gui contexts:-), but as for myself, i only wanted an answer to base my decision on, such as the one you've just given. portability is another matter, because here it has proven a lot easier to avoid non-portable features from the word go than to write for one's most familiar platform first, then worry about porting. where that is not yet possible or easy, those limitations need to be raised, so that they can be worked on, filepath being a recent example. don't put me on a high horse just because i'd prefer another license and am terribly tired of the discussion that tends to raise (i've been there on all sides for hugs/ghc/../programatica/hare/.. !-). claus