On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 8:26 PM, Ramana Kumar wrote:

Using the GPL (or a strong copyleft free license) strengthens the free software community of which I thought the Haskell community is a part (or at least intersects substantially).

Haskell libraries are mostly BSD licensed, as is GHC itself. (Oddly enough, GPL is not the only open source license.) Since most Haskell stuff is BSD licensed, GPL can cause license conflicts that do not exist with most other Haskell libraries. This is why GPL is not recommended for new Haskell libraries. -- brandon s allbery kf8nh sine nomine associates allbery.b@gmail.com ballbery@sinenomine.net unix, openafs, kerberos, infrastructure, xmonad http://sinenomine.net

Note: IANAL On Tue, 2012-12-11 at 17:45 -0800, David Thomas wrote:

On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 5:35 PM, Brandon Allbery wrote:

...

(Oddly enough, GPL is not the only open source license.)

There was no implication to the contrary. It was stated that BSD is a *weaker* license - this is true in the sense that it has fewer requirements (in particular, no copyleft) - and that "strong copyleft" licenses such as the GPL should be preferred as they do more to bolster the free software community. You can disagree with this claim (there are arguments both ways - delving into them is not my point here) but please try not to bring in straw men.

Actually the library is made available under the LGPL-3 license, according to its README, not the GPL (although the latter is implicit, of course). In the Haskell world this does have a different effect compared to when one uses the LGPL for, say, a C library though, since (at least for now) GHC uses/defaults to static linking, which IIRC (though IANAL) turns the LGPL into GPL, so this has a severe impact for application authors. This might be something people aren't aware of when releasing Haskell libraries using the LGPL. I tend to use the LGPL myself for most library-style projects, and do so as well for Haskell code (although I'm aware of the drawbacks), but I'm perfectly fine with people linking the libs statically as long as they comply to the license "as if they were using dynamic loading". If anyone knows some standard license which boils down to "obligations like LGPL but OK for static linking as well", please let me know. Nicolas

I asked that on SO: http://programmers.stackexchange.com/q/179084/61231 So far the best answer is wxWidget's license (LGPL + linking exception) which at least has been approved by OSI (although FSF approval would have been better). Best regards, Petr 2012/12/12 Ivan Lazar Miljenovic

On 12 December 2012 12:57, Nicolas Trangez wrote:

...

Note: IANAL

On Tue, 2012-12-11 at 17:45 -0800, David Thomas wrote:

...

On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 5:35 PM, Brandon Allbery

...

(Oddly enough, GPL is not the only open source license.)

There was no implication to the contrary. It was stated that BSD is a *weaker* license - this is true in the sense that it has fewer requirements (in particular, no copyleft) - and that "strong copyleft" licenses such as the GPL should be preferred as they do more to bolster the free software community. You can disagree with this claim (there are arguments both ways - delving into them is not my point here) but please try not to bring in straw men.

Actually the library is made available under the LGPL-3 license, according to its README, not the GPL (although the latter is implicit, of course).

In the Haskell world this does have a different effect compared to when one uses the LGPL for, say, a C library though, since (at least for now) GHC uses/defaults to static linking, which IIRC (though IANAL) turns the LGPL into GPL, so this has a severe impact for application authors. This might be something people aren't aware of when releasing Haskell libraries using the LGPL.

I tend to use the LGPL myself for most library-style projects, and do so as well for Haskell code (although I'm aware of the drawbacks), but I'm perfectly fine with people linking the libs statically as long as they comply to the license "as if they were using dynamic loading".

If anyone knows some standard license which boils down to "obligations like LGPL but OK for static linking as well", please let me know.

I too would like such a license; however, the closest I've seen is LGPL + linking exception (which I believe is the license Malcolm Wallace uses for the cpphs library, though not the executable).

...

Nicolas

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

-- Ivan Lazar Miljenovic Ivan.Miljenovic@gmail.com http://IvanMiljenovic.wordpress.com

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

On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 2:26 AM, Ramana Kumar wrote:

Using the GPL (or a strong copyleft free license) strengthens the free software community of which I thought the Haskell community is a part (or at least intersects substantially).

I don't think it strengthens the community. If someone wants to make a change a library, but not release the source, they cannot do that with GPL. The idea behind GPL is that then, the change is forced to be released - which would, as you say, strengthen the community. However, I think what would happen instead is that the person would simply not use the library in the first place. So in short: GPL does not make people become a part of the community - it pushes them away. Jonathan

As a matter of fact, BSD is far more popular on the desktop than GPL. And has a huge share of the mobile market. Witness: OS X, iOS. And none of this has anything to do with Haskell. Petr can release *his* code with any license he wants. Some licenses fit into *this* ecosystem better than others. Suggestions have been made and we can all move on. On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 6:03 PM, David Thomas wrote:

Right. Like, if Linus hadn't bogged down the Linux kernel with the GPL license, it might have wound up as popular as BSD!

Both dynamics go on, and the question is which is more likely to dominate in a given case (and cumulatively).

On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 5:50 PM, Jonathan Fischer Friberg < odyssomay@gmail.com> wrote:

...

On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 2:26 AM, Ramana Kumar wrote:

...

Using the GPL (or a strong copyleft free license) strengthens the free software community of which I thought the Haskell community is a part (or at least intersects substantially).

I don't think it strengthens the community. If someone wants to make a change a library, but not release the source, they cannot do that with GPL. The idea behind GPL is that then, the change is forced to be released - which would, as you say, strengthen the community. However, I think what would happen instead is that the person would simply not use the library in the first place.

So in short: GPL does not make people become a part of the community - it pushes them away.

Jonathan

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

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

I wonder if this discussion has been had before in the Haskell community. If so, pointers to archives could be of interest. I'm glad to see that there are others who apparently share my concern about the fact that people are actively recommending that new libraries be licensed without copyleft. The debate between strong and weak (or no) copyleft goes on in many quarters. I know which side seems right and which I would argue for, and I think it's a debate worth having, but perhaps in a new thread. At least for new libraries like Petr's, as Alexander said, the author can license however he wants. I hope others won't be so quick to encourage authors to make different choices without first resolving this debate or pointing to specific harms/benefits for the library in question. On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 1:13 PM, David Thomas wrote:

... and OS X and iOS are clearly a win for the FLOSS community?

On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 6:07 PM, Alexander Solla wrote:

...

As a matter of fact, BSD is far more popular on the desktop than GPL. And has a huge share of the mobile market. Witness: OS X, iOS.

And none of this has anything to do with Haskell. Petr can release *his* code with any license he wants. Some licenses fit into *this* ecosystem better than others. Suggestions have been made and we can all move on.

On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 6:03 PM, David Thomas wrote:

...

Right. Like, if Linus hadn't bogged down the Linux kernel with the GPL license, it might have wound up as popular as BSD!

Both dynamics go on, and the question is which is more likely to dominate in a given case (and cumulatively).

On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 5:50 PM, Jonathan Fischer Friberg < odyssomay@gmail.com> wrote:

...

On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 2:26 AM, Ramana Kumar < Ramana.Kumar@cl.cam.ac.uk> wrote:

...

Using the GPL (or a strong copyleft free license) strengthens the free software community of which I thought the Haskell community is a part (or at least intersects substantially).

I don't think it strengthens the community. If someone wants to make a change a library, but not release the source, they cannot do that with GPL. The idea behind GPL is that then, the change is forced to be released - which would, as you say, strengthen the community. However, I think what would happen instead is that the person would simply not use the library in the first place.

So in short: GPL does not make people become a part of the community - it pushes them away.

Jonathan

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

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

IANAL, but reviewing what others have written, it sounds like it may be possible to maintain *some* distinction between LGPL and GPL in Haskell, but it's a different distinction than with an LGPL shared library, so even if applicable it's certainly worth being aware of. It sounds (and I'd very much like clarification) like providing source of an application to users *without* license to redistribute, which can be built using an LGPL library, would be compliant - whereas if the library was GPL this would not be the case? On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 9:19 PM, wren ng thornton wrote:

On 12/11/12 9:30 PM, Ramana Kumar wrote:

...

I wonder if this discussion has been had before in the Haskell community. If so, pointers to archives could be of interest.

Indeed, the discussion has been had more than once. Alas, I'm too bogged for time to look up the archives at the moment.

I'm glad to see that there are others who apparently share my concern

...

about the fact that people are actively recommending that new libraries be licensed without copyleft.

The big issue, and the reason for suggesting that people not use LGPL is a technical one. Namely that due to GHC's heavy inlining etc, the things distinguishing LGPL from GPL are no longer in force, and therefore using the "LGPL" license for your library is equivalent to using the full GPL license for your library. Given as using the full GPL is not usually people's intent, it's important to make people aware of this issue. And in so doing, we usually suggest the BSD license (or similar) as an alternative.

Inevitably, however, after the details of this technical situation are discussed (often followed by a debate over the proper interpretation of the linking clauses of the GPL/LGPL), the thread then turns to arguments over the merits of various licenses... which eventually peters out when everyone is too upset to keep on with it, just as in every other free/open-source community. I don't mean to sound jaded, but I've been through the cycle more than a few times already. Perhaps this time someone'll mine the archives and set up a wiki highlighting the posts with insightful discussion (and insightful counterpoints) so we can direct people there for the next time...

-- Live well, ~wren

______________________________**_________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/**mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafehttp://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe

Hi, Am Mittwoch, den 12.12.2012, 02:50 +0100 schrieb Jonathan Fischer Friberg:

On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 2:26 AM, Ramana Kumar wrote: Using the GPL (or a strong copyleft free license) strengthens the free software community of which I thought the Haskell community is a part (or at least intersects substantially).

I don't think it strengthens the community. If someone wants to make a change a library, but not release the source, they cannot do that with GPL.

this is not fully correct. Correct would be to say: „If someone wants to make a change a library and distribute the resulting programs without also sharing the source with the recipient, they cannot do that with GPL.” So it is fully acceptable under the GPL to change the library for your own use, without sharing your code with anyone else. If you create a web service based on the modified library, you do not have to share the code (unless it is AGPL, but that is a different license). Also, if you want to sell the resulting program, you do not have to publish the source publicly, as long as you offer the source to your customers. For LGPL, we can assume that all this holds; whether the additional relaxation that LGPL provides over GPL apply to Haskell libraries seems to be doubtful. I hope that clarifies the situation a bit, Joachim -- Joachim "nomeata" Breitner mail@joachim-breitner.de | nomeata@debian.org | GPG: 0x4743206C xmpp: nomeata@joachim-breitner.de | http://www.joachim-breitner.de/