On 07/01/13 23:27, Pavel Zelinsky wrote:
Hi Ian,
As you suggested, maybe it is possible to consider code from report as a
"modified report", but it does not solve the problem unless the
condition of Haskell 98 Report (Haskell FFI) license is satisfied:
Modified versions of this Report may also be copied and distributed for
any purpose, provided that the _modified version is clearly presented as
such, and that it does not claim to_*_ be a definition of the Haskell 98
Language_**.*
I know, it might sound awkward, but to satisfy this condition of the
license you have to make such _required _statement in the code! That is
why the second question I asked was:
> 2) If the derived code was compiled with the following language in the
> license: "modified version is clearly presented as such, and that it does
> not claim to be a definition of the Haskell 98 Language"?
> Same questions about the "Haskell Foreign..." license.
Taking those two requirements separately:
"modified version is clearly presented as such"
The license already clearly states that:
This library [...] is derived from code from several
sources:
[...]
* Code from the Haskell 98 Report which is (c) Simon Peyton Jones
and freely redistributable (but see the full license for
restrictions).
and the second requirement:
"does not claim to be a definition of the Haskell 98 Language"
There certainly aren't any such claims, so the requirement is satisfied.
But are you saying that there needs to be an explicit statement
asserting the absence of such a claim?
Cheers,
Simon
Thanks,
Pavel
*Pavel Zelinsky*
Senior Manager and Group Leader, DemandTec Softlines Science
IBM Enterprise Marketing Management
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Phone:* 1-303-800-4562*
E-mail:*_pzeli...@us.ibm.com_ <mailto:t...@us.ibm.com>
IBM
1 Franklin Parkway
San Mateo, CA 94403
United States
Inactive hide details for Ian Lynagh ---01/07/2013 04:07:47 PM---On Mon,
Jan 07, 2013 at 03:51:57PM -0700, Pavel Zelinsky wroteIan Lynagh
---01/07/2013 04:07:47 PM---On Mon, Jan 07, 2013 at 03:51:57PM -0700,
Pavel Zelinsky wrote: >
From: Ian Lynagh <i...@well-typed.com>
To: Pavel Zelinsky/Boulder/IBM@IBMUS,
Cc: Simon Marlow <marlo...@gmail.com>, "cvs-ghc@haskell.org"
<cvs-ghc@haskell.org>, Simon Peyton-Jones <simo...@microsoft.com>
Date: 01/07/2013 04:07 PM
Subject: Re: Question about extensible-exceptions (to official
extensible-exceptions maintainer - GHC HQ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Mon, Jan 07, 2013 at 03:51:57PM -0700, Pavel Zelinsky wrote:
>
> Thank you all for your attention to the problem! I appreciate it!
>
> Let me try to clarify the question I asked.
>
> First of all, the same question was raised with Haskell_Containers
package
> and response from Milan Straka has completely resolved the problem, I
hope
> to receive similar response on the Extensible-Exceptions if
> possible/applicable.
>
> Problem is quite simple:
> - Extensible-Exceptions (similar to Containers) license claims that
code is
> derived from multiple sources including Haskell 98 Report and Haskell FFI
> - Full license of Haskell 98 Report and Haskell FFI does not contain any
> code license, but speaks only about entire report or modified report
> - So this represents a problem for our attorneys, because license of
> Extensible-Exceptions in unclear
I'm still not a lawyer, but I would imagine that:
* The Haskell 98 report licence applies to the whole report, including
any code it contains, any APIs it defines, etc
* If you take some code or an API from the report, then you have a
modified version of the report
* You will have the same problem with the base package
Thanks
Ian
--
Ian Lynagh, Haskell Consultant
Well-Typed LLP, http://www.well-typed.com/
_______________________________________________
Cvs-ghc mailing list
Cvs-ghc@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-ghc
