Re: RFC: "Native -XCPP" Proposal
On 2015-05-06 at 13:38:16 +0200, Jan Stolarek wrote: [...]
Regarding licensing issues: perhaps we should simply ask Malcolm Wallace if he would consider changing the license for the sake of GHC? Or perhaps he could grant a custom-tailored license to the GHC project? After all, the project page [1] says: " If that's a problem for you, contact me to make other arrangements."
Fyi, Neil talked to him[1]: | I talked to Malcolm. His contention is that it doesn't actually change | the license of the ghc package. As such, it's just a single extra | license to add to a directory full of licenses, which is no big deal. [1]: http://www.reddit.com/r/haskell/comments/351pur/rfc_native_xcpp_for_ghc_prop...
I also note that in this discussion, so far not a single person has said that the cpphs licence would actually be a problem for them. Regards, Malcolm On 7 May 2015, at 20:54, Herbert Valerio Riedel wrote:
On 2015-05-06 at 13:38:16 +0200, Jan Stolarek wrote:
[...]
Regarding licensing issues: perhaps we should simply ask Malcolm Wallace if he would consider changing the license for the sake of GHC? Or perhaps he could grant a custom-tailored license to the GHC project? After all, the project page [1] says: " If that's a problem for you, contact me to make other arrangements."
Fyi, Neil talked to him[1]:
| I talked to Malcolm. His contention is that it doesn't actually change | the license of the ghc package. As such, it's just a single extra | license to add to a directory full of licenses, which is no big deal.
[1]: http://www.reddit.com/r/haskell/comments/351pur/rfc_native_xcpp_for_ghc_prop...
participants (2)
-
Herbert Valerio Riedel -
Malcolm Wallace