Indeed. This is also how we use gcc and the llvm tooling.If we want the cpp tooling to be available as a library, that's a whole nother set of needs.Gmp lgpl I can brush under the rug at work because there's the various integer simple options, this gets a bit more squirrelly otherwise.Maybe it'd be simpler for two people to sit down for a weekend, one only narrating the cpphs code, the other only listening and paraphrasing it into a new program. Copyright on text only covers literal copying. Nontrivial rephrasing of everything plus some rejiggering of non local structure is not prevented by copyright law, and I doubt there are any patents in play.
On Friday, May 8, 2015, Mathieu Boespflug <mboes@tweag.net> wrote:[Gah, wrong From: email address given the list subscriptions, sorry
for the duplicates.]
I'm unclear why cpphs needs to be made a dependency of the GHC API and
included as a lib. Could you elaborate? (in the wiki page possibly)
Currently, GHC uses the system preprocessor, as a separate process.
Couldn't we for GHC 7.12 keep to exactly that, save for the fact that
by default GHC would call the cpphs binary for preprocessing, and have
the cpphs binary be available in GHC's install dir somewhere?
fork()/execvce() is cheap. Certainly cheaper than the cost of
compiling a single Haskell module. Can't we keep to this
separate-(and-pluggable)-preprocessor-executable scheme? We'd sidestep
most license tainting concerns that way.
On 8 May 2015 at 11:39, Herbert Valerio Riedel <hvriedel@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On 2015-05-08 at 11:28:08 +0200, Niklas Larsson wrote:
>> If the intention is to use cpphs as a library, won't the license
>> affect every program built with the GHC API? That seems to be a high
>> price to pay.
>
> Yes, every program linking the `ghc` package would be affected by
> LGPL+SLE albeit in a contained way, as it's mentioned on the Wiki page:
>
> | - As a practical consequence of the //LGPL with static-linking-exception//
> | (LGPL+SLE), **if no modifications are made to the `cpphs`-parts**
> | (i.e. the LGPL+SLE covered modules) of the GHC code-base,
> | **then there is no requirement to ship (or make available) any source code**
> | together with the binaries, even if other parts of the GHC code-base
> | were modified.
>
> However, don't forget we already have this issue w/ integer-gmp, and
> with that the LGPL is in full effect (i.e. w/o a static-linkage-exception!)
>
> In that context, the suggestion was made[1] to handle the cpphs-code
> like the GMP code, i.e. allow a compile-time configuration in the GHC
> build-system to build a cpphs-free (and/or GMP-free) GHC for those
> parties that need to avoid any LGPL-ish code whatsoever in their
> toolchain.
>
> Would that address this concern?
>
>
> [1]: http://www.reddit.com/r/haskell/comments/351pur/rfc_native_xcpp_for_ghc_proposal/cr1cdhb
> _______________________________________________
> Haskell-Cafe mailing list
> Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
> http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
_______________________________________________
ghc-devs mailing list
ghc-devs@haskell.org
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs