4 ms·

The default behavior was to statically link to libgmp. I don't know about you, but making people's programs GPL by default doesn't exactly inspire confidence in

by codexon 16y ago

The default behavior was to statically link to libgmp. I don't know about you, but making people's programs GPL by default doesn't exactly inspire confidence in the industry.

dons 16y ago
Whether or not libgmp was ever statically linked by default depended on your distribution. Were you shipping apps on Windows prior to the -dynamic flag's introduction? If so, then you were watching what libraries you were using, and following these instructions: http://haskell.forkio.com/gmpwindows http://haskell.forkio.com/gmpwindows These days you can just run "cabal license-check" (IIRC) which will type check all the libraries you use for compliance. Have a nice day.
- codexon 16y ago
  Dons, I know you are devoted to Haskell and will not take any criticism of it lightly. But I am not your enemy. I am willing to praise it myself when it is more suitable. Not when you try to spin it. You and your supporters succeeded in bombarding every article that even mentions Haskell the wrong way with snide comments, and probably won over a few hobbyists. At the end of the day though, the managers making the decisions will not think "Don Stewart said so, it must be true". They will find the same conclusions that Jon Harrop, myself, and other people you have ostracized have found. And this will continue until it even if you succeed in suppressing all negative feedback on Haskell. Have a nice day.
  - loup-vaillant 16y ago
    The only thing I ever saw Don Stewart "bombing" were factual evidence. And what he destroys by truth should be annihilated anyway (P. C. Hodgell). "Don Stewart said so, it must be true" actually isn't such a bad heuristic (as far as Haskell is concerned). From what I've seen, Don is quite cautious.
    - codexon 16y ago
      The only thing I ever saw Don Stewart "bombing" were factual evidence. This is not surprising coming from someone involved with Haskell. Do I really need to point to you the bug ticket that it was only 8 months ago that you could use something other than GMP? http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/601 http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/601 Even with the option to dynamically link, it still doesn't change the fact that it was the __default__. And what a scary default that was. Company lawyers don't like to touch anything related to GPL with a 10-foot pole, for the reason that it is really up to the jury to decide what is a "derivative work" even if you only link dynamically! Maybe if you live in France, or have a 5 person company, this is an acceptable state. Anyway I am done, you and Dons win, are you happy? I simply have no ulterior motive or incentive to defend my findings against organized groups who have their livelihoods and PhDs based on Haskell.
      - loup-vaillant 16y ago
        Err, I was only objecting to your attack on Don's on-line behaviour. Actually I'm (still) an outsider. Consider "what I ever saw" as anecdotal evidence. Now it's a pity that companies are scared of the GPL. As far as I know, most software is custom or private, is never released[1], and thus can't possibly infringe the GPL. I think the real problem here is corporate culture. No company would object using the glibc in a proprietary program. So why would they be scared of any other LGPL library? When they don't even release the software? That's plainly irrational. Now our choice is hard, but simple: get rid of the "GPL == we can't use it" line of thinking, or get rid of restrictive licences. [1]: Many custom software actually belong to the company that wrote it, rather than to the company (or government) that purchased it. In this case GPL infringement could happen. But really, I can't fathom why some customers still don't demand complete ownership (including source code) for their custom software. That strikes me as either wildly misinformed or incredibly silly.
        codexon 16y ago
        Why do you object? I just proved to you the legitimacy of my arguments while you still stand by Don's complete denial?I think it is very off-putting that anything remotely negative about Haskell is usually met with snide comments questioning their intelligence or being labeled as a troll. It also doesn't help that my comment was upvoted a few times, and when Dons & Co. replies, it drops to -3. I've also observed this type of behavior on Reddit. You aren't really an outsider considering your participation in the Haskell Cafe mailing list and being credited in Real World Haskell. And companies do object to using glibc in a proprietary program obviously. You are probably thinking of the GCC runtime which has an explicit exception for commercial programs that prevents them from turning GPL. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gcc-exception.html http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gcc-exception.html You also don't have any proof that most software is custom or private. Even if it is the majority, you cannot deny that the shrink-wrap industry is huge, especially during most of Haskell's existence. The answer is to avoid GPL code in the language which is what I was saying the whole time. You don't put the foundation of your business at risk just so you can use a cool new language.

by codexon 16y ago

The default behavior was to statically link to libgmp. I don't know about you, but making people's programs GPL by default doesn't exactly inspire confidence in the industry.

dons 16y ago

Whether or not libgmp was ever statically linked by default depended on your distribution. Were you shipping apps on Windows prior to the -dynamic flag's introduction? If so, then you were watching what libraries you were using, and following these instructions: http://haskell.forkio.com/gmpwindows http://haskell.forkio.com/gmpwindows These days you can just run "cabal license-check" (IIRC) which will type check all the libraries you use for compliance. Have a nice day.

codexon 16y ago
Dons, I know you are devoted to Haskell and will not take any criticism of it lightly. But I am not your enemy. I am willing to praise it myself when it is more suitable. Not when you try to spin it. You and your supporters succeeded in bombarding every article that even mentions Haskell the wrong way with snide comments, and probably won over a few hobbyists. At the end of the day though, the managers making the decisions will not think "Don Stewart said so, it must be true". They will find the same conclusions that Jon Harrop, myself, and other people you have ostracized have found. And this will continue until it even if you succeed in suppressing all negative feedback on Haskell. Have a nice day.
- loup-vaillant 16y ago
  The only thing I ever saw Don Stewart "bombing" were factual evidence. And what he destroys by truth should be annihilated anyway (P. C. Hodgell). "Don Stewart said so, it must be true" actually isn't such a bad heuristic (as far as Haskell is concerned). From what I've seen, Don is quite cautious.
  - codexon 16y ago
    The only thing I ever saw Don Stewart "bombing" were factual evidence. This is not surprising coming from someone involved with Haskell. Do I really need to point to you the bug ticket that it was only 8 months ago that you could use something other than GMP? http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/601 http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/601 Even with the option to dynamically link, it still doesn't change the fact that it was the __default__. And what a scary default that was. Company lawyers don't like to touch anything related to GPL with a 10-foot pole, for the reason that it is really up to the jury to decide what is a "derivative work" even if you only link dynamically! Maybe if you live in France, or have a 5 person company, this is an acceptable state. Anyway I am done, you and Dons win, are you happy? I simply have no ulterior motive or incentive to defend my findings against organized groups who have their livelihoods and PhDs based on Haskell.
    - loup-vaillant 16y ago
      Err, I was only objecting to your attack on Don's on-line behaviour. Actually I'm (still) an outsider. Consider "what I ever saw" as anecdotal evidence. Now it's a pity that companies are scared of the GPL. As far as I know, most software is custom or private, is never released[1], and thus can't possibly infringe the GPL. I think the real problem here is corporate culture. No company would object using the glibc in a proprietary program. So why would they be scared of any other LGPL library? When they don't even release the software? That's plainly irrational. Now our choice is hard, but simple: get rid of the "GPL == we can't use it" line of thinking, or get rid of restrictive licences. [1]: Many custom software actually belong to the company that wrote it, rather than to the company (or government) that purchased it. In this case GPL infringement could happen. But really, I can't fathom why some customers still don't demand complete ownership (including source code) for their custom software. That strikes me as either wildly misinformed or incredibly silly.
      - codexon 16y ago
        Why do you object? I just proved to you the legitimacy of my arguments while you still stand by Don's complete denial?I think it is very off-putting that anything remotely negative about Haskell is usually met with snide comments questioning their intelligence or being labeled as a troll. It also doesn't help that my comment was upvoted a few times, and when Dons & Co. replies, it drops to -3. I've also observed this type of behavior on Reddit. You aren't really an outsider considering your participation in the Haskell Cafe mailing list and being credited in Real World Haskell. And companies do object to using glibc in a proprietary program obviously. You are probably thinking of the GCC runtime which has an explicit exception for commercial programs that prevents them from turning GPL. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gcc-exception.html http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gcc-exception.html You also don't have any proof that most software is custom or private. Even if it is the majority, you cannot deny that the shrink-wrap industry is huge, especially during most of Haskell's existence. The answer is to avoid GPL code in the language which is what I was saying the whole time. You don't put the foundation of your business at risk just so you can use a cool new language.