"Simon Marlow"
- License: I'd prefer to specify a BSD-style (without advertising clause) license, with copyright on individual files remaining with the authors. GPL code creates particular problems for us here, so I'm keen to avoid it if possible.
I don't think that it is a good idea to specify a license. For example, I am convinced that the (L)GPL is the better licence for the community. Incidentally, the GPL is also the license of one of the most successful free software projects ever - Linux - which is certainly also one of the, if not *the* commercially most successful free software project. So, I don't buy this GPL is bad for companies propaganda. In that context, I recommend to read http://perens.com/Articles/StandTogether.html Anyway, while I am happy to discuss my position with anybody who is interested, I don't want to start a big licence discussion here. All in all, I think, we should let authors chose their license. I am sorry (honestly) if that creates a problem for you, but on the other hand, I am not keen on having a particular company influence our licencing policies - certainly not in something which we want to sell as a standard to the community.
- Let's aim for HaskellDoc long term, but since we're not close to arriving at a proposal for the documentation syntax we shouldn't wait for it - libraries can be converted to HaskellDoc later.
Absolutely.
For the centralised source repository we can use cvs.haskell.org, with a new 'libraries' module; library owners can be given accounts to maintain their own libraries. The source tree will need build systems for the different compilers (for GHC I'll probably arrange things so that libraries can be grafted onto fptools/ and use the build system there).
Don't libraries need their own build system anyway if they are to be portable? How do we want to handle libraries (eg, Gtk+Haskell) that * are in a different repository (Gnome repository) and/or * need special tools (C->Haskell)? Cheers, Manuel