Simon Marlow wrote:
On 20 October 2004 17:03, Peter Simons wrote:
Sven Panne writes:
If you mean "everyone happy with a LGPL", then I would agree. But GHC and Hugs use a BSD-style license, so cpphs is not an option for them. Why not? I wouldn't go so far as to say "not an option", but we definitely prefer as much of the system to be BSD-licensed as possible. It makes life much easier for our commercial users. I could talk at length on the subject, but life's too short :-p
I can only second that. I'm currently working for a very large company, and licensing issues are something very serious for such institutions. If there are any doubts about licenses, a technology will simply be ignored just for that reason. I know enough managers who will run away screaming if they hear "(L)GPL", so staying with the *much* more industry-friendly BSD license will be a good thing for GHC IMHO. I don't want to start a useless flame war about licenses, I just wanted to make my motivation clear: Like it or not, the (L)GPL is an obstacle for the introduction of new technologies in the industry, at least this is how I experienced this issue. This has nothing to do with my personal opinion, though... Furthermore, I don't think that the "C" in CPP is a real problem, at least in the traditional mode. 99% of the uses of a preprocessor for Haskell was simply for ironing out some platform/implementation differences, nothing very elaborate. So we don't really need a Haskell-aware preprocessor, just something which doesn't stumble over common Haskell constructs and behaves consistently. Cheers, S.