Yes, if you link statically, if you want to distribute without giving away source (or relinkable object files) you can link dynamically or use integer-simple in your GHC.
> 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!