On Fri, 4 Aug 2006, Udo Stenzel wrote:

Hans van Thiel wrote:

...

I'm wondering why I can't find any commercial Haskell applications on the Internet. Is there any reason for this?

Of course. Corporations are conservative to the point of being boneheaded. So to avoid risk, they all went on the internet and said, "Gee, I can't find any commercial Haskell applications on the Internet. There must be a reason for that, so I better use something else."

Or maybe they're more clever than you imagine, and they all have rooms full of Haskell programmers sworn to secrecy, trying to get a jump on the competition. Wouldn't it be funny if it turned out that the Python stuff at Google was just a side-show, and Haskell was really the big development language all along? (Not true, I'm sure - you could sort of stand a chance of starting a secret Python development project, but Haskell I doubt.) Donn

On 8/4/06, Donn Cave wrote:

On Fri, 4 Aug 2006, Hans van Thiel wrote: ...

...

Are there other reasons why there seem to be just a few thousand (hundred?) Haskell programmers in the world, compared to the 3 million Java programmers and x million C/C++ programmers?

I can think of several other possible reasons - 6. Instability - available for 15 years, you say, but does the Haskell of 15 years ago support today's programs? Does standard Haskell even support today's programs? 7. Some difficult concepts, at a level that goes way beyond the commonly used languages. 8. Problems with evaluation model and space that other languages don't have to deal with. 9. Missing libraries

10. I think most commercial applications are developed for windows users. For the last 15 years this has primarily meant the application ran in windows (this is starting to change but that's another story). I'm currently using ghc to do windows development for a company I work at. I'm often running into "corner" cases where ghc has bugs on windows or poor support for some MS technology that is assumed when using other languages like .NET. Both COM and dlls have problems right now (but this is getting better monotonically). 11. If you read the History of Haskell paper (http://haskell.org/haskellwiki/History_of_Haskell) you will see that haskell was meant as a vehicle for research. This BTW, would be a highly relevant read for someone that wants more insight into why Haskell is not a Java killer. 12. Chicken and the egg. Having lots of users will attract more users. 13. Some industry programmers don't choose their tools based on technical worth so much as who is backing them. I'd like to think this explains the popularity of C++ and now Java/C#. I have 2nd hand information that Bjarne never meant for C++ to escape AT&T or really even go outside of the domain he was working in (which I recall was something embedded) but when people found out AT&T had a new OO capable language they jumped on. I'm not sure if it's really true, but watching Java/C# gain popularity it wouldn't surprise me. 14. I've heard arguments that a lot of the people who become industry devs are really turned off from functional languages during typical CS theory courses. I have no idea how anyone could verify this claim, plus I had the exact opposite reaction. I was transformed into a fan of FP by my theory courses. 15. OO is now tried and true in industry. I would say it's far from optimal but people do know they can build large applications (say ~100k lines of C++). So naturally shifting to a new paradigm will meet resistance. There also seems to be a lack of programs in the open source world which are written in Haskell. We have two big open source projects that people outside of the haskell community may hear of, pugs and darcs. I would say this reflects #6 but I'm relatively new to haskell so I could be wrong. Even with all this there are some people that are using haskell commercially (or lobbying for it). Joel Reymount Tim Sweeny* Galois Connections Myself * I think Tim is just wanting more of haskell's great features in the languages he already uses (http://www.st.cs.uni-sb.de/edu/seminare/2005/advanced-fp/docs/sweeny.pdf) Also, check the Haskell Communities and Activities Report: http://www.haskell.org/communities/ I'm sure I missed someone.

and more, I suppose. I'm not saying any of these are necessarily compelling reasons not to use Haskell, but altogether, maybe another way to look at it is that it's really a strong statement when people decide to bet their livelihood on Haskell software development - it isn't the safe choice, and it means someone finds the reasons for it very compelling.

Yes, trying to meet deadlines with untrusted tools is scary business. Not everyone likes to gamble with their jobs :) I hope that helps, Jason

G'day all. Quoting Udo Stenzel :

Uh, this one's wrong. Does C++ of 15 years ago support today's programs?

C++ of _today_ doesn't support today's programs in some cases. Just ask the Boost developers about the various workarounds they still have to deal with.

No. C++ of 10 years ago probably does, but the compiler will crash.

Even compiling a fully conforming ISO C++ standard library generally requires a compiler from at most three years ago. Generally speaking, any C++ application that was written 10 years ago and hasn't been rewritten avoids large parts of the standard library precisely because it was so poorly supported, and what was supported was poorly implemented. (That's why Qt looks like it does.) Cheers, Andrew Bromage

Hello Kaveh, Saturday, August 5, 2006, 10:16:06 AM, you wrote:

1 - monads : there must be something to make a clear tool for a none-mathematician programmer. (I still have understanding problems with them).

http://haskell.org/haskellwiki/IO_inside and "All about monads"

2 - there must be an easy way to include existing libraries. There are many stable libraries in CPAN for perl, implemented in C for example. And why not to have a system for writing C in haskell?

what you mean?

Or an easy interface for using these codes without reimplementing haskell identities in C?

there is FFI and several tools that easy defining interfaces for C libs. search at "libraries and tools" haskellwiki pages -- Best regards, Bulat mailto:Bulat.Ziganshin@gmail.com

G'day all. Quoting Jason Dagit :

15. OO is now tried and true in industry. I would say it's far from optimal but people do know they can build large applications (say ~100k lines of C++). So naturally shifting to a new paradigm will meet resistance.

OO on its own is also well-understood to be inadequate for programming- in-the-large. 100k lines, by the way, isn't "large". 1M lines is "large". 10M+ lines is "very large". Large or very large programs tend to use one or more varieties of componentisation (e.g. higher-level scripting layer, plugins, COM/CORBA/.NET), which is arguably at a strictly higher level than OO. Cheers, Andrew Bromage

Henning Thielemann wrote:

On Fri, 4 Aug 2006, Brian Hulley wrote:

...

...

4) Haskell is open source and licensing restrictions forbid commercial applications. I haven't seen any such restrictions, but is this a problem for the standard modules?

You can discover the licensing situation by downloading the GHC source (or source for whatever distro you're using) and looking in the directories for each package. For example the base package uses a BSD-style licence and HaXml uses LGPL with the exception to allow static linking.

A license which requires programmers to disclose their sources shouldn't be a problem for a commercial application. Which C hacker would or could steal code from it? :-)

Hi Henning - Apologies for not replying sooner. I couldn't think what to say! ;-) Disclaimer: the following essay only contains 2 Haskell functions and is not intended to cause offence to farmers... Afaict a license such as GPL allows anyone, even a non-programmer, to just re-distribute whatever application you created because one condition of it is that anyone should be free to share software with anyone else without having to pay anything extra to the people who wrote it, and I think this is essentially based on the notion that software should not be regarded as an ownable or sellable "thing". However a potato is sellable, even though farmers have such a great time out in the fields breathing in the fresh misty morning air and watching the beautiful colours of the sunrise, and basically just letting nature take its course with a bit of healthy exercise and free food thrown in for good measure (it might even be some of my personal sweat that evaporates and later falls as rain to nourish "their" crops). And what makes them think they have a right to "own" parts of the earth's surface anyway! ;-) While I'd personally like to live in a peaceful society where everything is freely available, the fact is that I have to deal with the situation I find myself in at the moment ie I have to pay money whevener I need food, electricity, gas, internet, petrol, dvds, music, art etc and I absolutely don't agree that everyone else in the world except software developers has the right to earn a living, while we just give everything away because it's so much "fun" bringing it into existence, or that we should be chastised for trying to charge for our efforts!!! ;-) Also, if we want a better world I can think of other professions to sacrifice (Hint: take 5 p = "polit" and last p = 'n'). Making complete end-user applications freely available is not always helpful to others, even to the end-users. Consider how a local corner-shop owner would feel if all the large supermarket chains stood outside his door giving away free food. The consumers are very happy! How selfless and beneficient those big supermarkets are! But how long would the corner-shop be able to stay open? And would the supermarkets continue to supply the free food after they'd finally wiped out his business? People no longer meet for a chat at the corner-shop. There is a void in the community. People start to feel alienated. Houses are vandalised. Crime is on the increase. The government claims it needs more powers to prevent it. Perhaps a few people see what's happening but really it's already too late... Of course from a pragmatic point of view it is useful for developers to share parts of their source or coding ideas, since there is clearly too much work for any one person to do, thus BSD and LGPL make a lot of commercial sense, as well as being a nice gesture of fraternity between coders, and a blueprint for the future if we can only find the right strategies to achieve it given our own specific individual circumstances. Therefore I think licenses which enforce a particular strategy or attempt to limit possible business models to further a specific agenda, however well meaning they may appear, are unattractive for commercial development in general, even though some specific niche companies can manage fine under those conditions (eg consultants/ trainers/ contracted developers etc). Regards, Brian. -- Logic empowers us and Love gives us purpose. Yet still phantoms restless for eras long past, congealed in the present in unthought forms, strive mightily unseen to destroy us. http://www.metamilk.com

Brian Hulley wrote:

Henning Thielemann wrote:

...

On Fri, 4 Aug 2006, Brian Hulley wrote:

...

...

4) Haskell is open source and licensing restrictions forbid commercial applications. I haven't seen any such restrictions, but is this a problem for the standard modules?

The reason you have no seen any such restriction is because there are no such restrictions. And no license on the compiler restricts what kind of application you can create with it, such as "forbid commercial applications". "Haskell" is a standard, not source code. The Haskell 98 report ( http://www.haskell.org/onlinereport/ ) is

Copyright (c) Simon Peyton Jones. The authors intend this Report to belong to the entire Haskell community, and so we grant permission to copy and distribute it for any purpose, provided that it is reproduced in its entirety, including this Notice. Modified versions of this Report may also be copied and distributed for any purpose, provided that the modified version is clearly presented as such, and that it does not claim to be a definition of the language Haskell 98.

Each third party library chooses its own license.

...

...

You can discover the licensing situation by downloading the GHC source (or source for whatever distro you're using) and looking in the directories for each package. For example the base package uses a BSD-style licence and HaXml uses LGPL with the exception to allow static linking.

The GHC compiler and its libraries are covered by the 3-clause BSD license: http://haskell.org/ghc/license.html ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_License ). Microsoft could copy the source of GHC into Office (Excel) to run Haskell code in spreadsheets and the only restriction is to append the GHC license (for its disclaimer) to the Office license. It does not get more commercial than that, and it is permitted. If you want to write a new spreadsheet in Haskell using GHC and sell it for $1000 a copy (without source code), then you can do that without looking at GHC's license. If you want to take GHC and make a new version that supports your own improvements, then you can sell this myGHC (without source) for any price you chose. The HaXml library is not part of GHC. The authors of that particular library have given it a modified LGPL license: http://www.cs.york.ac.uk/fp/HaXml/COPYRIGHT They have specifically made the LGPL less restrictive; since the LGPL is a bit hard to read quickly, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGPL may be easier. The programs that come with the HaXml library are licensed under the GPL.

...

A license which requires programmers to disclose their sources shouldn't be a problem for a commercial application. Which C hacker would or could steal code from it? :-)

Since no compiler I know of does require disclosure, I recognize that the above is a purely sarcastic statement. And the canonical use of the smiley gives it away.

Hi Henning - Apologies for not replying sooner. I couldn't think what to say! ;-)

Disclaimer: the following essay only contains 2 Haskell functions and is not intended to cause offence to farmers...

Disclaimer: I like the GPL, I understand the LGPL, and I am releasing my work on Text.Regex.Lazy as BSD.

Afaict a license such as GPL allows anyone, even a non-programmer, to just re-distribute whatever application you created because one condition of it is that anyone should be free to share software with anyone else without having to pay anything extra to the people who wrote it, and I think this is essentially based on the notion that software should not be regarded as an ownable or sellable "thing".

The GPL does indeed do that. Your "even a non-programmer" aside is strange, as I cannot guess how to segregate people into such a category. The GPL itself refers to a cost of distribution, since it recognizes such things are not free-in-price. This is in reference to offering a copy of the source code. The price of a binary copy can be as large as desired. Likewise for the cost of support. Nothing copyrighted is a ownable or sellable "thing". All copyrighted software is licensed. You cannot make many useful analogies between "things" and licenses.

However a potato is sellable, even though farmers have such a great time out in the fields breathing in the fresh misty morning air and watching the beautiful colours of the sunrise, and basically just letting nature take its course with a bit of healthy exercise and free food thrown in for good measure (it might even be some of my personal sweat that evaporates and later falls as rain to nourish "their" crops). And what makes them think they have a right to "own" parts of the earth's surface anyway! ;-)

Farmers have great mystique and respect in modern society. That was a good choice for emotion-based rhetoric.

While I'd personally like to live in a peaceful society where everything is freely available, the fact is that I have to deal with the situation I find myself in at the moment ie I have to pay money whevener I need food, electricity, gas, internet, petrol, dvds, music, art etc and I absolutely don't agree that everyone else in the world except software developers has the right to earn a living, while we just give everything away because it's so much "fun" bringing it into existence, or that we should be chastised for trying to charge for our efforts!!! ;-)

Software developers can decide what to do with their copyrights. Many exchange their copyrights to the company they work for in return for a steady salary. Some work freelance or as consultants and may or may not transfer the copyright to the client. Some release programs as shareware, or with free vs paid versions. These days many work on writing web sites, and never give anyone a binary or source code. And some choose a free software license (like GPL). And some choose an open source license (like BSD).

Also, if we want a better world I can think of other professions to sacrifice (Hint: take 5 p = "polit" and last p = 'n').

Two haskell functions, check. But I would not choose anarchy, thanks. Though the reputation of politicians is low, so this is another good piece of emotion-based rhetoric.

Making complete end-user applications freely available is not always helpful to others, even to the end-users. Consider how a local corner-shop owner would feel if all the large supermarket chains stood outside his door giving away free food. The consumers are very happy! How selfless and beneficient those big supermarkets are! But how long would the corner-shop be able to stay open? And would the supermarkets continue to supply the free food after they'd finally wiped out his business? People no longer meet for a chat at the corner-shop. There is a void in the community. People start to feel alienated. Houses are vandalised. Crime is on the increase. The government claims it needs more powers to prevent it. Perhaps a few people see what's happening but really it's already too late...

Wow. In reality, the big markets are Microsoft, Oracle, Sun, IBM, Apple, Sony, etc. So the Redhat's of the world are the small shops, along with the small developers. Let me talk about Redhat for a moment. Besides packaging a Linux distribution, they also create many programs and software products for business clients. Everything they write and release is under the GPL. So anyone can simply recompile the code and compete with them. Also "Red Hat Inc. late Wednesday said its quarterly profit rose 11% and revenue surged on stronger demand for subscriptions to its open-source business software." (June 28,2006)

Of course from a pragmatic point of view it is useful for developers to share parts of their source or coding ideas, since there is clearly too much work for any one person to do, thus BSD and LGPL make a lot of commercial sense, as well as being a nice gesture of fraternity between coders, and a blueprint for the future if we can only find the right strategies to achieve it given our own specific individual circumstances.

Let me translate "pragmatic" a different way. The ability to having rising salaries in a mature labor market is tied to increasing productivity. Not having to re-invent each and every wheel makes you more productive. Being able to re-use a library makes you more productive, and you could argue that should mean the re-use has commercial value and you should be willing to pay for it.

Therefore I think licenses which enforce a particular strategy or attempt to limit possible business models to further a specific agenda, however well meaning they may appear, are unattractive for commercial development in general, even though some specific niche companies can manage fine under those conditions (eg consultants/ trainers/ contracted developers etc).

Oh, I see you may be considering Redhat as in a "niche".

Regards, Brian.

The open source licenses exists because some coders wanted a license that business would be able to ignore. The free software licenses exists because some coders wanted to secure the human rights issues that they believe exists with respect to software. From the GPL:

When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price. Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for this service if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it if you want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it in new free programs; and that you know you can do these things.

Your views seem to advocate the position of the one person or small team of freelance software writers that need to be able to charge for their work. If this is done as consultants for a single customer, then the free software licenses may or may not be a good fit for a particular project, depending on the customer's demands (who keeps the copyright, for instance). If this is done to sell a software license to many customers then free software licenses may not be useful, depending on whether there will be some customers needing to pay for support or customization. The GPL only gets in the way if you put it there by choosing to derive work from GPL code. Note that most commercial programs do not allow you the choice of deriving your work from theirs at all. The GPL adds to your free-as-in-freedom: you can derive work from others' GPL work and you can choose whether to use the GPL for your own work. Your long complaint against this seems strange to me. -- Chris [1] http://marketwatch.com/News/Story/Story.aspx?siteid=mktw&guid=%7BA5486EDC-E0AF-407F-8709-18C8C022DB5C%7D&

On 06/08/06, Brian Hulley wrote:

Therefore I think this distinction between concepts is just sophistry.

The distinction is there and relies on the community and people being honest to avoid situations as you described. If you don't want it however (well in this case relying on honesty seems ... naive, to say the least), you may choose a different license. You're free after all :)

The system of owners of software encourages software owners to produce something--- but not what society really needs. And it causes intangible ethical pollution that affects us all.

Is this not designed to stir up feelings of guilt in proprietary software developers? And is it desirable to limit the production of software to "what society really needs"? Eg I'm glad the Coca-Cola company chooses to produce Coke because I like drinking it but in no way could it be said that I actually *need* it, and I wouldn't expect them to reveal their secret recipe so endless other companies could instantly start competing with them.

The Coke is not the best example. First of all you don't expect that Coca-Cole gives you right to modify the drink to suit your needs. Nobody knows even what that would be supposed to mean :) Secondly, even if Stallman's philosophy is quite idealistic, there is number of practices in software industry that make ethical doubts arise (at least when I'm concerned). Yet still it is customers' choice that they allow to be fooled.

I can't entirely dismiss GNU/FSF/GPL but it poses a fundamental conflict with the only way I can see of earning a living so it's like a continuous background problem which drains some of my energy and enthusiasm hence the length of my rambling post where I made another attempt to understand my relation to it.

Well, setting aside usefulness of GPL in a commercial world, it did serve a purpose not allowing anybody to buy out the opensource world and kill it, didn't it? Regards, -- Intelligence is like a river: the deeper it is, the less noise it makes

On 07/08/06, Brian Hulley wrote:

So now Ned, who's a very conscientious person, is faced with an impossible moral dilemma, ie a choice between helping Nick establish his business or losing Homer (who's a bit slow when it comes to matters of conscience) as a friend.

A good friend should not put him in such a position ;) Regards, -- Intelligence is like a river: the deeper it is, the less noise it makes

Well I understand the "free as in free speech not free beer" motto, but suppose person A is talented at writing software but prefers a peaceful existence and lacks the contacts/refs/desire/energy etc to be a consultant or contractor, and has had the bad experience of being forced to work extremely long hours with low pay while in an employed position, and person B is outgoing, ebullient, and talented at marketing and advertising. Now person A spends some years quietly writing some code, which uses a GPL library and is therefore GPL'd, and sells it, as is his/her right under the GPL to person B.

If person A really worked for years using a GPL'd library and hoping to make money selling the resulting program (rather than services around that program), he's a complete and total idiot. In any case, making a living by selling a program (as opposed to services around that program) is a difficult business. Except when it's a program written on-demand for a customer who pays you directly to write it (in which case the GPL probably won't get in way, BTW).

I can't entirely dismiss GNU/FSF/GPL but it poses a fundamental conflict with the only way I can see of earning a living so it's like a continuous background problem which drains some of my energy and enthusiasm hence the length of my rambling post where I made another attempt to understand my relation to it.

Maybe you should thank the FSF for making you doubt: you should really think very hard about how you're going to make a living off of selling a program, even if that program hasn't been anywhere near any GPL'd code. In all likelihood it'll be much easier to earn your money by selling services around your program than just the program itself. Stefan

Jón Fairbairn wrote:

Stefan Monnier writes:

...

...

I can't entirely dismiss GNU/FSF/GPL but it poses a fundamental conflict with the only way I can see of earning a living so it's like a continuous background problem which drains some of my energy and enthusiasm hence the length of my rambling post where I made another attempt to understand my relation to it.

Maybe you should thank the FSF for making you doubt: you should really think very hard about how you're going to make a living off of selling a program, even if that program hasn't been anywhere near any GPL'd code. In all likelihood it'll be much easier to earn your money by selling services around your program than just the program itself.

To add to that from the point of view of a potential user: if there some programme that I'm going to rely on and its source is not free, I'll look elsewhere rather than rely on a single vendor that might disappear without a trace and leave me with no support.

Conversely, if it has free source, but doesn't quite do what I'm relying on it to do, I'll happily pay someone to sort it out for me (assuming that I can't/don't want to/am to busy to do it myself and that I have any money).

I know of several good ideas that started out as attempts at commercial projects but weren't taken up. The best that happened to them is that someone recoded the idea (or it was re-released) as free software. If that didn't happen, they disappeared without trace. Remember, keeping the code secret is no protection against someone rewriting the whole thing from scratch. If it's a big enough idea, you can be sure that some large commercial concern (and conceivably teams of amateurs) will do that unless you've patented something crucial... and keeping patents alive is an expensive business -- especially if there's a large concern on your case ("we want to use your patented idea. Oh, it looks like your code uses one of our patented ideas; you'll be hearing from our lawyers").

Thanks Jón and Stefan for these points. I'm coming round to the idea that possibly a combination of BSD (for libs) and a metamorphosing licence for the program (from proprietary up to a certain date then GPL thereafter) would solve these problems by removing incentives for anyone else to try and reverse engineer code before I'd had time to get an established user base, while keeping users happy (6 months is not that long to wait to get full control), and preventing anyone else getting a similar advantage after the 6 months had elapsed (if they used any of the non-BSD parts of the app (now available to them under GPL) they'd have to release their version as GPL). After the 6 months had elapsed, other companies could develop the code further, but they wouldn't be able to impose a similar metamorphosing license because the code they used (apart from the BSD components of course) would be covered by GPL. However *I* would still have the right to modify my code and repeat the metamorphic process because I wouldn't be bound by the metamorphic GPL license I sold to others (please correct me if I've got this wrong), so people could choose to pay a modest sum to me for the improved version, (which I'd have had a head start of the last 6 months to develop) or wait 6 months to get it from some other company, or spend several months hacking themselves starting from the original version... It gets even better because as long as I make sure that I only use BSD libs + my own code, I could always choose to release future versions with a proprietary license therefore the amortized consequence of the previous metamorphic GPL releases would be risk-free (those versions now being so far behind that they would be irrelevant) yet any other companies which had made improvements (as long as they were based on a version they received + all their own code (or BSD code)) could be a useful source of ideas (to reimplement) or collaboration. Anyway no doubt this is all getting a bit off topic but it's interesting that the different concepts provided by BSD and GPL can suggest possible models like the above. Regards, Brian. -- Logic empowers us and Love gives us purpose. Yet still phantoms restless for eras long past, congealed in the present in unthought forms, strive mightily unseen to destroy us. http://www.metamilk.com

On Aug 7, 2006, at 10:00 AM, Stefan Monnier wrote:

In any case, making a living by selling a program (as opposed to services around that program) is a difficult business.

Making a living writing and selling programs for use by a wide audience is one thing. But there is a lot of money to be made by developers who really understand a complex niche market (assuming the niche is actually populated by customers who need and can pay for the product). And the GPL absolutely gets in the way of that. Because what you're really selling in that kind of market is software as an instantiation of business expertise.

Maybe you should thank the FSF for making you doubt: you should really think very hard about how you're going to make a living off of selling a program, even if that program hasn't been anywhere near any GPL'd code. In all likelihood it'll be much easier to earn your money by selling services around your program than just the program itself.

Selling services is much easier if you can tie the services to IP that you own exclusively. It can also double your firm's daily rate on related services. And the economics of selling product (the program) can be MUCH better, assuming people want to use the program. If they don't, then you don't have a service business either. I'm not making (or getting involved in) the moral argument about free or open software. I will point out that the current good health of Haskell owes a great deal to Microsoft through the computer scientists they employ. I'm sure Haskell has benefitted from the largesse of other companies as well. Reilly

On Aug 8, 2006, at 1:42 AM, Immanuel Litzroth wrote:

"Reilly Hayes" writes:

...

I don't understand your argument. How exactly does the GPL get in the way of selling software as an instantiation of business expertise? Are you saying that you have the business expertise but customers still prefer not to buy your software? Doesn't that just mean that your expertise isn't worth much (economic evaluation :-). Or that your idea that they were buying expertise was not correct, they were just buying the software after all, and now they have an alternative?

I failed to communicate my case clearly. The software *is* what is being sold. The *reason* it is valuable is the business expertise required to build it. There are markets with very small populations of people who both understand the business thoroughly and can implement solutions. It makes software valuable and makes licensing the most effective way to monetize that value.

Yes I know the business model. Sell them some overpriced software charge them through the nose for support, features, training, installation, updates .... Your resentment against the GPL stems from the fact that it makes squeezing the last buck out of your clients somewhat harder (in some markets). It probably annoys you that you are not dealing with a competitor who is making shitloads of money, making some price fixing or secret agreements not feasable. Your problem is that just as your business practice is not illegal, neither is the GPL.

This paragraph is way out of line. You have taken a discussion of the merits of using GPL software and turned it into a personal attack. Attack the argument, not the arguer. It would be both polite and reasonable to tone down the hostility if you actually want a discussion. Certainly, some firms use restrictive software licensing to maximize short term revenue from their clients in the way you describe. But I was referring to the marketing value of having the IP. It's easier to sell services when you have some unique core IP, even to clients that aren't going to buy your product. It gives your credibility a boost. I don't have a problem with the GPL. In my professional life, I am careful to avoid GPL software in those cases where the GPL would interfere with the firm's commercial interests. I certainly don't resent the GPL or those who choose to release software under the GPL. In fact, I can imagine wanting to release some kinds of software under the GPL. The point I was making was that the GPL *does* get in the way of *some* optimal mechanisms of making money. Which is *fine*. That is one of the *intents* of the GPL. The argument that I am trying to counter is the one that says open source is *always* better for everybody. Sometimes, the best thing for the owner of the intellectual property is to keep it closed. There *are* markets where monetization of IP is a zero sum game, or worse (if the IP is public, nobody makes any money).

...

I'm not making (or getting involved in) the moral argument about free or open software. I will point out that the current good health of Haskell owes a great deal to Microsoft through the computer scientists they employ. I'm sure Haskell has benefitted from the largesse of other companies as well.

That is definitely wrong. Haskell would be in even greater shape if some people who shall remain unnamed had not gone over to Microsoft. I foresee an interesting discussion here.

I don't see how you can say Haskell would be better OR worse off if people hadn't gone to work for Microsoft. It's an entirely hypothetical case and it's just not knowable. My point is much simpler. Haskell & GHC do benefit from the efforts of people being paid by Microsoft. Microsoft is planning to hire a full-time contractor to work on GHC. The snarky comment about "people who shall remain unnamed" is rude. -R Hayes

On Sun, Aug 06, 2006 at 10:46:16AM +0100, Chris Kuklewicz wrote:

[...]

The GPL only gets in the way if you put it there by choosing to derive work from GPL code. Note that most commercial programs do not allow you the choice of deriving your work from theirs at all. The GPL adds to your free-as-in-freedom: you can derive work from others' GPL work and you can

GPL also brings about restrictions to freedom-in-speech that are rarely mentioned: Say you develop the code for a client to run her production facilities. This code contains sensitive information about the way the facilities work and must not fall into the hands of the client's competitors. But if GPL is stuck to any part of the code and manages to infect the rest, the client can make you sign as many NDAs as there can be. The GPL still entitles you to sell it. I'm sure there are other scenarios in which the restritions that GPL places on the developer are equally prohibitive. GPL/LGPL is interesting, LGPL v3 may turn into something cool or not. (I heard they have problems sorting out the above scenario, too, or something more tricky, I forgot.) But placing restrictions on how the code may be used has lead to surprising problems. BSD on the other hand is a safe bet. cheers, matthias

There is a false statement that must be corrected, about NDA's. Matthias Fischmann wrote:

On Sun, Aug 06, 2006 at 10:46:16AM +0100, Chris Kuklewicz wrote:

...

[...]

The GPL only gets in the way if you put it there by choosing to derive work from GPL code. Note that most commercial programs do not allow you the choice of deriving your work from theirs at all. The GPL adds to your free-as-in-freedom: you can derive work from others' GPL work and you can

GPL also brings about restrictions to freedom-in-speech that are rarely mentioned: Say you develop the code for a client to run her production facilities. This code contains sensitive information about the way the facilities work and must not fall into the hands of the client's competitors. But if GPL is stuck to any part of the code and manages to infect the rest, the client can make you sign as many NDAs as there can be.

The GPL is not a disease that "infect"s. That is a metaphor made by people who hate such licenses. The GPL does not blow in the window or from someone's sneeze and get "stuck" to code. To introduce GPL derived code is a choice made be the programmer. You can always choose not to derive from GPL code, and you can always change your mind later and rewrite the derived code so you can remove it. Talking about biological metaphors is deliberately misleading.

...the client can make you sign as many NDAs as there can be. The GPL still entitles you to sell it. I'm sure there are other scenarios in which the restritions that GPL places on the developer are equally prohibitive.

No. You are wrong. Google for GPL and NDA gives http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html :

Does the GPL allow me to distribute a modified or beta version under a nondisclosure agreement?

No. The GPL says that anyone who receives a copy of your version from you has the right to redistribute copies (modified or not) of that version. It does not give you permission to distribute the work on any more restrictive basis.

Does the GPL allow me to develop a modified version under a nondisclosure agreement?

Yes. For instance, you can accept a contract to develop changes and agree not to release your changes until the client says ok. This is permitted because in this case no GPL-covered code is being distributed under an NDA.

You can also release your changes to the client under the GPL, but agree not to release them to anyone else unless the client says ok. In this case, too, no GPL-covered code is being distributed under an NDA, or under any additional restrictions.

The GPL would give the client the right to redistribute your version. In this scenario, the client will probably choose not to exercise that right, but does have the right.

As the developer you can sign an NDA and it will bind you. But it will not bind the client.

GPL/LGPL is interesting, LGPL v3 may turn into something cool or not. (I heard they have problems sorting out the above scenario, too, or something more tricky, I forgot.) But placing restrictions on how the code may be used has lead to surprising problems. BSD on the other hand is a safe bet.

Note that there are many people who will not do work on a BSD project since a company can just come along and take it. People are free to choose GPL or BSD for their work and then other people are free to choose whether to derive work from them. But if there was no GPL and the only choice was BSD then much of the current GPL'd work would not exist. -- Chris

On Mon, Aug 07, 2006 at 12:57:47PM +0100, Chris Kuklewicz wrote:

To: Matthias Fischmann CC: haskell-cafe@haskell.org From: Chris Kuklewicz Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2006 12:57:47 +0100 Subject: Re: [Haskell-cafe] Why Not Haskell? (sidenote on licensing)

There is a false statement that must be corrected, about NDA's.

Sorry. Just learned something, thanks!

Matthias Fischmann wrote:

...

On Sun, Aug 06, 2006 at 10:46:16AM +0100, Chris Kuklewicz wrote:

...

[...]

The GPL only gets in the way if you put it there by choosing to derive work from GPL code. Note that most commercial programs do not allow you the choice of deriving your work from theirs at all. The GPL adds to your free-as-in-freedom: you can derive work from others' GPL work and you can

GPL also brings about restrictions to freedom-in-speech that are rarely mentioned: Say you develop the code for a client to run her production facilities. This code contains sensitive information about the way the facilities work and must not fall into the hands of the client's competitors. But if GPL is stuck to any part of the code and manages to infect the rest, the client can make you sign as many NDAs as there can be.

The GPL is not a disease that "infect"s. That is a metaphor made by people who hate such licenses. The GPL does not blow in the window or from someone's sneeze and get "stuck" to code. To introduce GPL derived code is a choice made be the programmer. You can always choose not to derive from GPL code, and you can always change your mind later and rewrite the derived code so you can remove it. Talking about biological metaphors is deliberately misleading.

Sorry, I didn't mean to offend anybody, or be misleading. I like GPL, but I also like the disease metaphor (although is not as much being sneezed at as having sex with somebody :-). And it's really not as easy to control as you suggest: If you ever take in a single patch under the GPL, or even implement a new feature in an obvious way that has been implemented by somebody else under the GPL, you are in trouble. AFAIR this happened to SSH.com with the bigint code in ssh-v1.3, but if you contradict me now I have to take your word for it. (So please do! :)

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html :

...

Does the GPL allow me to distribute a modified or beta version under a nondisclosure agreement?

No. The GPL says that anyone who receives a copy of your version from you has the right to redistribute copies (modified or not) of that version. It does not give you permission to distribute the work on any more restrictive basis.

(In my example I was worried about *less* restrictive, but the subsequent points seem to cover that, too.)

...

GPL/LGPL is interesting, LGPL v3 may turn into something cool or not. (I heard they have problems sorting out the above scenario, too, or something more tricky, I forgot.) But placing restrictions on how the code may be used has lead to surprising problems. BSD on the other hand is a safe bet.

Note that there are many people who will not do work on a BSD project since a company can just come along and take it. People are free to choose GPL or BSD for their work and then other people are free to choose whether to derive work from them. But if there was no GPL and the only choice was BSD then much of the current GPL'd work would not exist.

I tend to agree. Would be fun to have some empirical data to boost the accuracy of the 'much' part of this. cheers, Matthias

Udo, us:

mf:

...

AFAIR this happened to SSH.com with the bigint code in ssh-v1.3

SSH included GMP, which was licensed under the GPL. Nothing "happened" there, only the OpenSSH folks disliked the license and reimplemented GMP.

... and had to fight an ugly battle over the question whether the reimplementation was legitimate reuse of ideas or code theft. I don't understand why you have to be so insulting. I was making a false claim because I didn't know better, but I don't consider that a good reason to claim everything I am saying is bullshit and start a bar fight. Anyway this is not only getting ugly but also way off topic. I'm out. cheers, Matthias

Stefan Monnier writes: (snip)

Doesn't sound credible. You're free to write and sell a program whose source code is exactly the same as Emacs's (or PowerPoint for that matter) as long as you can show it was pure accident (snip)

It's kind of hard to be sure that you'll be able to show that, though, especially if the other code was available to you. -- Mark

Albert Lai wrote:

Let's have a fun quiz! Guess the mainstream languages in question:

Spoilers for the quiz

0. What language would allow

4["hello world"]

when a normal person would just write

"hello world"[4]

This is a classic C misfeature.

1. What language, supporting a kind of both parametric polymorphism and subclass polymorphism, allows and actually features such a class declaration as

class Enum { ... }

I have to guess here. Java.

2. What language allows you to test primality in constant runtime? That is, move all the work to compile time, using its polymorphism.

C++, also a classic feature. There are even books that discuss this technique, and I believe a SPJ paper referring to it.

robdockins:

On Aug 8, 2006, at 5:36 PM, Albert Lai wrote:

...

"Brian Hulley" writes:

...

Also, the bottom line imho is that Haskell is a difficult language to understand, and this is compounded by the apparent cleverness of unreadable code like:

c = (.) . (.)

when a normal person would just write:

c f g a b = f (g a b)

All mainstream languages are also difficult to understand, with similarly clever, unreadable code. Let's have a fun quiz! Guess the mainstream languages in question:

[snip]

...

2. What language allows you to test primality in constant runtime? That is, move all the work to compile time, using its polymorphism.

GHC-Haskell (with enough extensions enabled)? We're most of the way there already with type arithmetic. I bet putting together a nieve primality test would be pretty doable. In fact, I suspect that GHC's type-checker is turing-complete with MPTCs, fundeps, and undecidable instances. I've been contemplating the possibility of embedding the lambda calculus for some time (anybody done this already?)

http://haskell.org/haskellwiki/Type_arithmetic#A_Really_Advanced_Example_:_T... also http://haskell.org/haskellwiki/Type_arithmetic#An_Advanced_Example_:_Type-Le... -- Don

On Aug 4, 2006, at 11:10 PM, Bulat Ziganshin wrote:

Friday, August 4, 2006, 8:17:42 PM, you wrote:

...

1) Haskell is too slow for practical use, but the benchmarks I found appear to contradict this.

it's an advertisement :D just check yourself

...

2) Input and output are not good enough, in particular for graphical user interfacing and/or data base interaction. But it seems there are several user interfaces and SQL and other data base interfaces for Haskell, even though the tutorials don't seem to cover this.

i've seen a paper which lists 7 (as i remember) causes of small Haskell popularity, including teaching, libraries, IDEs and so on. may be someone will give us the url

Is this the paper you are referring to? Philip Wadler. Why no one uses functional languages. ACM SIGPLAN Notices, 33(8):23--27, 1998. http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/wadler98why.html /Björn