Wolfgang Jeltsch
Am Freitag, 26. September 2008 09:24 schrieb Magnus Therning:
Now I have fairly strong feelings about freedom of code and I everything I release is either under GPL or LGPL.
Ah, the RMS prevarication. ;-) Honestly, copyleft gives the user *less* freedom because he can no longer choose a license for redistribution freely.
That utterly depends on circumstance. Consider SDL and e.g. the id engine: Indeed every SDL user is given the freedom to link the engine to any SDL version he chooses, thus making it possible for arcane-private-os user XYZ to quake to his heart's content. The BSD is geared towards freedom of developers, the LGPL is geared towards freedom of developers _and_ users, the GPL itself towards freedom of all software. As with everything trying to influence everything that isn't itself everything, it has serious issues with reality compatibility. I still think that the proper solution to the OP's problem isn't yet another licence those vultures called lawyers can nitpick about, but to support painless dynamic linking. That means statically compiling Haskell to a .so or, preferable for applications that are written in Haskell, loading .hi/.ho combinations or even whole collections of those packed in a .hso or something. -- (c) this sig last receiving data processing entity. Inspect headers for copyright history. All rights reserved. Copying, hiring, renting, performance and/or broadcasting of this signature prohibited.