Hmm, what license to use?

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
97 messages Options
12345
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Hmm, what license to use?

Manlio Perillo-3
Magnus Therning ha scritto:

> Recently I received an email with a question regarding the licensing
> of a module I've written and uploaded to Hackage.  I released it under
> LGPL.  The sender wondered if I would consider re-licensing the code
> under BSD (or something similar) that would remove the need for users
> to provide linkable object files so that users can re-link programs
> against newer/modified versions of my library.
>
> Now I have fairly strong feelings about freedom of code and I
> everything I release is either under GPL or LGPL.  What I like about
> those licenses is it protects freedom in a way that I think it should
> and it forces a sort of reciprocity which resonates very well with my
> selfishness.  Re-licensing code under BSD is not something I'm willing
> to do without something that compensates for that reciprocity, and I
> can think of several kinds of compensation here but they all pretty
> much boil down to either fame or fortune. ;-)
>
> Once GHC supports dynamic binding on all platforms (or at least the
> major ones) this issue will (largely) go away (thanks Andrew for
> reporting on the state of this), but until then LGPL does create a
> large burden for users of my module.  Until that happens I wouldn't
> mind re-licensing the code under a license that has the reciprocity
> attribute of LGPL on the source level, but does allow for static
> linking without requiring the availability of linkable object files.
> Is there such a license?
>
> I've heard that the OCaml crowd uses a modified LGPL with a static
> linking exception.  Unfortunately I've also heard that their addition
> to LGPL hasn't gotten much review by lawyers, I'd much rather use
> something that feels less ad hoc, if you get what I mean.
>
> Any suggestions?
>

Sorry if I can't help, but I suggest you a quick check here:
http://www.opensource.org/licenses/category

> /M


Manlio Perillo
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Hmm, what license to use?

Stefan Monnier
In reply to this post by Manlio Perillo-3
> When I compare GPL and MIT/BSD licenses, I do a simple reasoning.
> Suppose a doctor in a battle field meet a badly injuried enemy.
> Should he help the enemy?

My answer would be that he indeed should, at the condition that the
patient will switch side.  Oh wait, that's just what the GPL says.


        Stefan "Analogies are broken"

_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Hmm, what license to use?

Wolfgang Jeltsch-2
In reply to this post by Magnus Therning
Am Freitag, 26. September 2008 09:24 schrieb Magnus Therning:
> Recently I received an email with a question regarding the licensing
> of a module I've written and uploaded to Hackage.  I released it under
> LGPL.  The sender wondered if I would consider re-licensing the code
> under BSD (or something similar) that would remove the need for users
> to provide linkable object files so that users can re-link programs
> against newer/modified versions of my library.

Since GHC does cross-package inlining, code of your library is directly
included (not just linked) into code that uses the library.  So I think that
every code that uses your library will have to be released und the GPL or
LGPL which is a very bad situation.

People, don’t release Haskell libraries under the LGPL!

> Now I have fairly strong feelings about freedom of code and I
> everything I release is either under GPL or LGPL.

Ah, the RMS prevarication. ;-)  Honestly, copyleft gives the user *less*
freedom because he can no longer choose a license for redistribution freely.

> […]

Best wishes,
Wolfgang
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Hmm, what license to use?

Bugzilla from jonathanccast@fastmail.fm
In reply to this post by Thomas Davie
On Fri, 2008-09-26 at 12:17 +0200, Thomas Davie wrote:

> On 26 Sep 2008, at 12:12, Janis Voigtlaender wrote:
>
> > Manlio Perillo wrote:
> >> When I compare GPL and MIT/BSD licenses, I do a simple reasoning.
> >> Suppose a doctor in a battle field meet a badly injuried enemy.
> >> Should he help the enemy?
> >
> > I'm so glad I don't understand this ;-)
>
> Should you decide not to give someone something based on the fact that  
> you either don't like them, or don't like what they'll do with the  
> thing you give them.

I think the standard answer to your question is that you get the enemy
to *surrender* first, patch him up enough to move him, and then stick
him in a POW camp for the duration, or until you get something in return
for releasing him.

I would never patch someone up so he can go back to *shooting* at me, or
my friends.  Never.

jcc


_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: Hmm, what license to use?

Michael Giagnocavo
In reply to this post by Manlio Perillo-3
> Now I have fairly strong feelings about freedom of code and I
> everything I release is either under GPL or LGPL.  What I like about
> those licenses is it protects freedom in a way that I think it should

I'm afraid I'll just be boring and make a recommendation:
http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/mpl-faq.html

In short, it protects your source files and requires modifications to be contributed on a file-by-file basis. The "downside" as far as freedom-restrictions-or-whatever-you-wanna-call-it is that one can "get around" it by creating new source files and putting all their changes in there.

But still, it provides some copyleft without the full, uh, impact, of LGPL.

-Michael
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Hmm, what license to use?

Simon Marlow-5
In reply to this post by Magnus Therning
Magnus Therning wrote:

> I've heard that the OCaml crowd uses a modified LGPL with a static
> linking exception.  Unfortunately I've also heard that their addition
> to LGPL hasn't gotten much review by lawyers, I'd much rather use
> something that feels less ad hoc, if you get what I mean.
>
> Any suggestions?

I don't know of any "officially sanctioned" licenses that have this
property, but I'd just like to call for the LGPL + static linking
exception license to be made more visible by putting it on the wiki
somewhere, or perhaps including it as an option for the license field in
Cabal.  We need to publicise the fact that complying with the LGPL is
difficult in the context of Haskell, and give people a way to easily
work around it.

Cheers,
        Simon
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Re: Hmm, what license to use?

Marco Túlio Gontijo e Silva
In reply to this post by Stefan Monnier
Op vrijdag 26-09-2008 om 11:45 uur [tijdzone -0400], schreef Stefan
Monnier:
> > When I compare GPL and MIT/BSD licenses, I do a simple reasoning.
> > Suppose a doctor in a battle field meet a badly injuried enemy.
> > Should he help the enemy?
>
> My answer would be that he indeed should, at the condition that the
> patient will switch side.  Oh wait, that's just what the GPL says.

This is a good requisition if he is sure that he is on the right side of
the battle, which is a assumption the soldier probably does, but should
the doctor do it too?  Accept my truth or die.

>         Stefan "Analogies are broken"

Analogies doesn't have the pretension of being perfect.  If they were,
they wouldn't be analogies.

Greetings.

--
marcot
Página: http://marcotmarcot.iaaeee.org/
Blog: http://marcotmarcot.blogspot.com/
Correio: [hidden email]
XMPP: [hidden email]
IRC: [hidden email]
Telefone: 25151920
Celular: 98116720
Endereço:
  Rua Turfa, 639/701
  Prado 30410-370
  Belo Horizonte/MG Brasil


_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Re: Hmm, what license to use?

Bugzilla from jonathanccast@fastmail.fm
On Fri, 2008-09-26 at 13:01 -0300, Marco Túlio Gontijo e Silva wrote:

> Op vrijdag 26-09-2008 om 11:45 uur [tijdzone -0400], schreef Stefan
> Monnier:
> > > When I compare GPL and MIT/BSD licenses, I do a simple reasoning.
> > > Suppose a doctor in a battle field meet a badly injuried enemy.
> > > Should he help the enemy?
> >
> > My answer would be that he indeed should, at the condition that the
> > patient will switch side.  Oh wait, that's just what the GPL says.
>
> This is a good requisition if he is sure that he is on the right side of
> the battle, which is a assumption the soldier probably does, but should
> the doctor do it too?

Yikes.  I should go create a /. thread for this to move to.

jcc


_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Hmm, what license to use?

Achim Schneider
In reply to this post by Wolfgang Jeltsch-2
Wolfgang Jeltsch <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Am Freitag, 26. September 2008 09:24 schrieb Magnus Therning:
> > Now I have fairly strong feelings about freedom of code and I
> > everything I release is either under GPL or LGPL.
>
> Ah, the RMS prevarication. ;-)  Honestly, copyleft gives the user
> *less* freedom because he can no longer choose a license for
> redistribution freely.
>
That utterly depends on circumstance. Consider SDL and e.g. the id
engine: Indeed every SDL user is given the freedom to link the engine
to any SDL version he chooses, thus making it possible for
arcane-private-os user XYZ to quake to his heart's content.

The BSD is geared towards freedom of developers, the LGPL is geared
towards freedom of developers _and_ users, the GPL itself towards
freedom of all software. As with everything trying to influence
everything that isn't itself everything, it has serious issues with
reality compatibility.

I still think that the proper solution to the OP's problem isn't
yet another licence those vultures called lawyers can nitpick about,
but to support painless dynamic linking.

That means statically compiling Haskell to a .so or, preferable for
applications that are written in Haskell, loading .hi/.ho combinations
or even whole collections of those packed in a .hso or something.

--
(c) this sig last receiving data processing entity. Inspect headers
for copyright history. All rights reserved. Copying, hiring, renting,
performance and/or broadcasting of this signature prohibited.

_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Hmm, what license to use?

Achim Schneider
In reply to this post by Bugzilla from jonathanccast@fastmail.fm
Jonathan Cast <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Fri, 2008-09-26 at 13:01 -0300, Marco Túlio Gontijo e Silva wrote:
> > Op vrijdag 26-09-2008 om 11:45 uur [tijdzone -0400], schreef Stefan
> > Monnier:
> > > > When I compare GPL and MIT/BSD licenses, I do a simple
> > > > reasoning. Suppose a doctor in a battle field meet a badly
> > > > injuried enemy. Should he help the enemy?
> > >
> > > My answer would be that he indeed should, at the condition that
> > > the patient will switch side.  Oh wait, that's just what the GPL
> > > says.
> >
> > This is a good requisition if he is sure that he is on the right
> > side of the battle, which is a assumption the soldier probably
> > does, but should the doctor do it too?
>
> Yikes.  I should go create a /. thread for this to move to.
>
The standard practise:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triage

has enough moral compensations by itself to make you gulp. Medical
personnel, in general, doesn't care about sides, morals or any such
bickering but helps.

--
(c) this sig last receiving data processing entity. Inspect headers
for copyright history. All rights reserved. Copying, hiring, renting,
performance and/or broadcasting of this signature prohibited.

_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Re: Hmm, what license to use?

Bugzilla from jonathanccast@fastmail.fm
On Fri, 2008-09-26 at 18:26 +0200, Achim Schneider wrote:

> Jonathan Cast <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 2008-09-26 at 13:01 -0300, Marco Túlio Gontijo e Silva wrote:
> > > Op vrijdag 26-09-2008 om 11:45 uur [tijdzone -0400], schreef Stefan
> > > Monnier:
> > > > > When I compare GPL and MIT/BSD licenses, I do a simple
> > > > > reasoning. Suppose a doctor in a battle field meet a badly
> > > > > injuried enemy. Should he help the enemy?
> > > >
> > > > My answer would be that he indeed should, at the condition that
> > > > the patient will switch side.  Oh wait, that's just what the GPL
> > > > says.
> > >
> > > This is a good requisition if he is sure that he is on the right
> > > side of the battle, which is a assumption the soldier probably
> > > does, but should the doctor do it too?
> >
> > Yikes.  I should go create a /. thread for this to move to.
> >
> The standard practise:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triage
>
> has enough moral compensations by itself to make you gulp.

Huh?  Has that page been edited since you last looked at it?  It doesn't
say a thing about military practice, specifically, except that it
originated *behind the French lines* in WWI, which I guess is where all
those German soldiers were taken so they could be patched up and
returned to their own side.

Sheesh.

jcc


_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Hmm, what license to use?

Thomas Davie
In reply to this post by Bugzilla from jonathanccast@fastmail.fm

On 26 Sep 2008, at 17:51, Jonathan Cast wrote:

> On Fri, 2008-09-26 at 12:17 +0200, Thomas Davie wrote:
>> On 26 Sep 2008, at 12:12, Janis Voigtlaender wrote:
>>
>>> Manlio Perillo wrote:
>>>> When I compare GPL and MIT/BSD licenses, I do a simple reasoning.
>>>> Suppose a doctor in a battle field meet a badly injuried enemy.
>>>> Should he help the enemy?
>>>
>>> I'm so glad I don't understand this ;-)
>>
>> Should you decide not to give someone something based on the fact  
>> that
>> you either don't like them, or don't like what they'll do with the
>> thing you give them.
>
> I think the standard answer to your question is that you get the enemy
> to *surrender* first, patch him up enough to move him, and then stick
> him in a POW camp for the duration, or until you get something in  
> return
> for releasing him.
>
> I would never patch someone up so he can go back to *shooting* at  
> me, or
> my friends.  Never.

Yet doctors all abide by the hypocratic(sp?) oath.

Bob
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Hmm, what license to use?

Bugzilla from jonathanccast@fastmail.fm
On Fri, 2008-09-26 at 18:45 +0200, Thomas Davie wrote:

> On 26 Sep 2008, at 17:51, Jonathan Cast wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 2008-09-26 at 12:17 +0200, Thomas Davie wrote:
> >> On 26 Sep 2008, at 12:12, Janis Voigtlaender wrote:
> >>
> >>> Manlio Perillo wrote:
> >>>> When I compare GPL and MIT/BSD licenses, I do a simple reasoning.
> >>>> Suppose a doctor in a battle field meet a badly injuried enemy.
> >>>> Should he help the enemy?
> >>>
> >>> I'm so glad I don't understand this ;-)
> >>
> >> Should you decide not to give someone something based on the fact  
> >> that
> >> you either don't like them, or don't like what they'll do with the
> >> thing you give them.
> >
> > I think the standard answer to your question is that you get the enemy
> > to *surrender* first, patch him up enough to move him, and then stick
> > him in a POW camp for the duration, or until you get something in  
> > return
> > for releasing him.
> >
> > I would never patch someone up so he can go back to *shooting* at  
> > me, or
> > my friends.  Never.
>
> Yet doctors all abide by the hypocratic(sp?) oath.

Really?  Even medics?  Got any evidence of that?

jcc


_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Hmm, what license to use?

Achim Schneider
In reply to this post by Bugzilla from jonathanccast@fastmail.fm
Jonathan Cast <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Fri, 2008-09-26 at 18:26 +0200, Achim Schneider wrote:
> > Jonathan Cast <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, 2008-09-26 at 13:01 -0300, Marco Túlio Gontijo e Silva
> > > wrote:
> > > > Op vrijdag 26-09-2008 om 11:45 uur [tijdzone -0400], schreef
> > > > Stefan Monnier:
> > > > > > When I compare GPL and MIT/BSD licenses, I do a simple
> > > > > > reasoning. Suppose a doctor in a battle field meet a badly
> > > > > > injuried enemy. Should he help the enemy?
> > > > >
> > > > > My answer would be that he indeed should, at the condition
> > > > > that the patient will switch side.  Oh wait, that's just what
> > > > > the GPL says.
> > > >
> > > > This is a good requisition if he is sure that he is on the right
> > > > side of the battle, which is a assumption the soldier probably
> > > > does, but should the doctor do it too?
> > >
> > > Yikes.  I should go create a /. thread for this to move to.
> > >
> > The standard practise:
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triage
> >
> > has enough moral compensations by itself to make you gulp.
>
> Huh?  Has that page been edited since you last looked at it?  It
> doesn't say a thing about military practice, specifically, except
> that it originated *behind the French lines* in WWI, which I guess is
> where all those German soldiers were taken so they could be patched
> up and returned to their own side.
>
Indeed it doesn't and neither did my civil protection training, and I
didn't intend to post a link containing such information.

I wasn't told anything about enemies, either, but since I'd be there
in official office, not helping would not only mean risking getting
sentenced on the grounds of failure to aid, but negligent homicide.

I don't know about military paramedics, but the same law should apply.

Self-preservation, OTOH, is the first duty of all medical personnel.


--
(c) this sig last receiving data processing entity. Inspect headers
for copyright history. All rights reserved. Copying, hiring, renting,
performance and/or broadcasting of this signature prohibited.

_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Re: Hmm, what license to use?

Bugzilla from jonathanccast@fastmail.fm
On Fri, 2008-09-26 at 18:50 +0200, Achim Schneider wrote:

> Jonathan Cast <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 2008-09-26 at 18:26 +0200, Achim Schneider wrote:
> > > Jonathan Cast <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Fri, 2008-09-26 at 13:01 -0300, Marco Túlio Gontijo e Silva
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > Op vrijdag 26-09-2008 om 11:45 uur [tijdzone -0400], schreef
> > > > > Stefan Monnier:
> > > > > > > When I compare GPL and MIT/BSD licenses, I do a simple
> > > > > > > reasoning. Suppose a doctor in a battle field meet a badly
> > > > > > > injuried enemy. Should he help the enemy?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > My answer would be that he indeed should, at the condition
> > > > > > that the patient will switch side.  Oh wait, that's just what
> > > > > > the GPL says.
> > > > >
> > > > > This is a good requisition if he is sure that he is on the right
> > > > > side of the battle, which is a assumption the soldier probably
> > > > > does, but should the doctor do it too?
> > > >
> > > > Yikes.  I should go create a /. thread for this to move to.
> > > >
> > > The standard practise:
> > >
> > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triage
> > >
> > > has enough moral compensations by itself to make you gulp.
> >
> > Huh?  Has that page been edited since you last looked at it?  It
> > doesn't say a thing about military practice, specifically, except
> > that it originated *behind the French lines* in WWI, which I guess is
> > where all those German soldiers were taken so they could be patched
> > up and returned to their own side.
> >
> Indeed it doesn't and neither did my civil protection training, and I
> didn't intend to post a link containing such information.
>
> I wasn't told anything about enemies, either, but since I'd be there
> in official office, not helping would not only mean risking getting
> sentenced on the grounds of failure to aid, but negligent homicide.
>
> I don't know about military paramedics, but the same law should apply.

I don't trust your instincts w.r.t. `should' as applied to the military.

jcc


_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Hmm, what license to use?

Jason Dagit-2
In reply to this post by Thomas Davie


On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 9:45 AM, Thomas Davie <[hidden email]> wrote:

On 26 Sep 2008, at 17:51, Jonathan Cast wrote:

On Fri, 2008-09-26 at 12:17 +0200, Thomas Davie wrote:
On 26 Sep 2008, at 12:12, Janis Voigtlaender wrote:

Manlio Perillo wrote:
When I compare GPL and MIT/BSD licenses, I do a simple reasoning.
Suppose a doctor in a battle field meet a badly injuried enemy.
Should he help the enemy?

I'm so glad I don't understand this ;-)

Should you decide not to give someone something based on the fact that
you either don't like them, or don't like what they'll do with the
thing you give them.

I think the standard answer to your question is that you get the enemy
to *surrender* first, patch him up enough to move him, and then stick
him in a POW camp for the duration, or until you get something in return
for releasing him.

I would never patch someone up so he can go back to *shooting* at me, or
my friends.  Never.

Yet doctors all abide by the hypocratic(sp?) oath.

Although, I've heard that in the US taking the oath is now an optional part of graduation for doctors.  Wikipedia seems to agree but without a citation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippocratic_Oath

Jason


_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Re: Hmm, what license to use?

Bugzilla from jonathanccast@fastmail.fm
In reply to this post by Bugzilla from jonathanccast@fastmail.fm
On Fri, 2008-09-26 at 09:48 -0700, Jonathan Cast wrote:

> On Fri, 2008-09-26 at 18:50 +0200, Achim Schneider wrote:
> > Jonathan Cast <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, 2008-09-26 at 18:26 +0200, Achim Schneider wrote:
> > > > Jonathan Cast <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Fri, 2008-09-26 at 13:01 -0300, Marco Túlio Gontijo e Silva
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > Op vrijdag 26-09-2008 om 11:45 uur [tijdzone -0400], schreef
> > > > > > Stefan Monnier:
> > > > > > > > When I compare GPL and MIT/BSD licenses, I do a simple
> > > > > > > > reasoning. Suppose a doctor in a battle field meet a badly
> > > > > > > > injuried enemy. Should he help the enemy?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > My answer would be that he indeed should, at the condition
> > > > > > > that the patient will switch side.  Oh wait, that's just what
> > > > > > > the GPL says.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This is a good requisition if he is sure that he is on the right
> > > > > > side of the battle, which is a assumption the soldier probably
> > > > > > does, but should the doctor do it too?
> > > > >
> > > > > Yikes.  I should go create a /. thread for this to move to.
> > > > >
> > > > The standard practise:
> > > >
> > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triage
> > > >
> > > > has enough moral compensations by itself to make you gulp.
> > >
> > > Huh?  Has that page been edited since you last looked at it?  It
> > > doesn't say a thing about military practice, specifically, except
> > > that it originated *behind the French lines* in WWI, which I guess is
> > > where all those German soldiers were taken so they could be patched
> > > up and returned to their own side.
> > >
> > Indeed it doesn't and neither did my civil protection training, and I
> > didn't intend to post a link containing such information.
> >
> > I wasn't told anything about enemies, either, but since I'd be there
> > in official office, not helping would not only mean risking getting
> > sentenced on the grounds of failure to aid, but negligent homicide.
> >
> > I don't know about military paramedics, but the same law should apply.
>
> I don't trust your instincts w.r.t. `should' as applied to the military.

Nevertheless, this thread has gone *far* off-topic.  It no longer has
any relation to software licensing, software, or Haskell, and I will
personally no longer contribute to it.  I will also be deleting any
further emails unread.

jcc


_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Hmm, what license to use?

Achim Schneider
In reply to this post by Thomas Davie
Thomas Davie <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> On 26 Sep 2008, at 17:51, Jonathan Cast wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 2008-09-26 at 12:17 +0200, Thomas Davie wrote:
> >> On 26 Sep 2008, at 12:12, Janis Voigtlaender wrote:
> >>
> >>> Manlio Perillo wrote:
> >>>> When I compare GPL and MIT/BSD licenses, I do a simple reasoning.
> >>>> Suppose a doctor in a battle field meet a badly injuried enemy.
> >>>> Should he help the enemy?
> >>>
> >>> I'm so glad I don't understand this ;-)
> >>
> >> Should you decide not to give someone something based on the fact  
> >> that
> >> you either don't like them, or don't like what they'll do with the
> >> thing you give them.
> >
> > I think the standard answer to your question is that you get the
> > enemy to *surrender* first, patch him up enough to move him, and
> > then stick him in a POW camp for the duration, or until you get
> > something in return
> > for releasing him.
> >
> > I would never patch someone up so he can go back to *shooting* at  
> > me, or
> > my friends.  Never.
>
> Yet doctors all abide by the hypocratic(sp?) oath.
>
They may abide by it, but they're, at least in Germany, not required to
take it. They're only required to abide by the law.

The oath itself has been obsoleted by
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_Geneva
, btw.


--
(c) this sig last receiving data processing entity. Inspect headers
for copyright history. All rights reserved. Copying, hiring, renting,
performance and/or broadcasting of this signature prohibited.

_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Hmm, what license to use?

Magnus Therning
In reply to this post by Wolfgang Jeltsch-2
Wolfgang Jeltsch wrote:

> Am Freitag, 26. September 2008 09:24 schrieb Magnus Therning:
>  
>> Recently I received an email with a question regarding the licensing
>> of a module I've written and uploaded to Hackage.  I released it under
>> LGPL.  The sender wondered if I would consider re-licensing the code
>> under BSD (or something similar) that would remove the need for users
>> to provide linkable object files so that users can re-link programs
>> against newer/modified versions of my library.
>>    
>
> Since GHC does cross-package inlining, code of your library is directly
> included (not just linked) into code that uses the library.  So I think that
> every code that uses your library will have to be released und the GPL or
> LGPL which is a very bad situation.
>
> People, don’t release Haskell libraries under the LGPL!
>  
That would be serious indeed, but before changing my ways I'd need more
information to back up your statement.  Could someone confirm that code
from one installed module can be inlined into another?

AFAIU you are saying that the linker is reaching into the module's .a
file, pulling out the .o file, and then reaching into that .o file to
pull out an individual function's ASM code.  I believe that's a bit more
than regular C linkers would do.

/M

--
Magnus Therning                             (OpenPGP: 0xAB4DFBA4)
magnus@therning.org             Jabber: magnus@therning.org
http://therning.org/magnus

Haskell is an even 'redder' pill than Lisp or Scheme.
     -- PaulPotts



_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe

signature.asc (204 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re[2]: Hmm, what license to use?

Bulat Ziganshin-2
Hello Magnus,

Saturday, September 27, 2008, 3:48:27 PM, you wrote:

> AFAIU you are saying that the linker is reaching into the module's .a
> file, pulling out the .o file, and then reaching into that .o file to
> pull out an individual function's ASM code.  I believe that's a bit more
> than regular C linkers would do.

compiled haskell module represented in ghc as a .hi+.o files,
installed libraries as a .a plus a set of .h files (you may find lots
of .hi in your ghc installation)

afaiu, .hi files contains parts f source haskell code in some
partially compiled form. ability to perform inter-module and
inter-library inlining is a key to efficiency of ghc-compiled
programs, specially for polymorphic functions. when you use such
functions as head, you are definitely got them inlined



--
Best regards,
 Bulat                            mailto:[hidden email]

_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
12345