The following message is a courtesy copy of an article that has been posted to gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.linux.advocacy as well.
Hi, This is a long post, so I've divided it into sections---Preface, Request for Feedback, Consideration, Conclusion, Appendix---to help you figure out whether it's worth reading. :) TIA for any feedback and I will summarize if I get enough info. Haters and lovers alike of the GPL are invited to comment, criticize, flame, etc. I. Preface To those of you who do not know about Haskell, it is the most important purely functional programming language. Several groups worldwide are actively developing Haskell implementations. See <http://haskell.org> for more info, such as on the implementations: HUGS, GHC, Chalmers, NHC. Again, to those unfamiliar with functional languages, consider the place mathematics has had in advancing technology. Consider the potential for good in a programming language with an exceptionally strong mathematical basis, such as Haskell. II. Request for Feedback _Next week_ top developers (of HUGS and GHC) are meeting to consider, among many other things, whether to move to the GPL. In the Appendix is a license of one of the implementations, HUGS. I have been asked to email them reasons why a Haskell implementation should be GPLed, and I _ask you for feedback._ III. Considerations (1) An important consequence of licensing is how amenable it is to distribution, such as with the Linux distributions (RedHat, Debian, etc.). Restrictive licenses such as HUGS (see part [b] of the license) or unclear licenses (such as with the GHC implementation) result in many fewer people not enjoying and using some important software. I know that is why there is no Debian Haskell package yet. (2) Naturally, one of the top concerns of the developers is that Haskell is used as widely as possible. It seems that they do not care whether that is via the sharing that the GPL encourages or via the binary distributions that are so typical in the Windows community. In my experience, I find that most users are oblivious to licenses, though the Linux community seems to be more aware. Therefore, the GPL would be quite suitable. (3) In fact, although these implementations are available for several platforms, there seems to be quite a bias towards Windows. For example, there has been collaboration with Microsoft Research on developing a Haskell animation system ("FRAN") that works (naturally) only in Windows, and while the Windows graphics interface has been actively maintained, there is none available for the X Window system. Please understand, FRAN is great stuff, and I have nothing against development for Windows---it's just a real shame that little is being done for other OSes. At the very least a GPL might encourage more development within the Linux community, for example. OTOH, developers of proprietary software (such as Microsoft) would avoid software licensed under GPL. (4) Probably (3) is motivated partly because of the ubiquity of Windows. But as a Linux user, I am deeply concerned when important research occurs with proprietary, technically inferior OSes, while free, excellent ones such as Linux and *BSD take a back seat. Please, no OS war; I just have yet to see that Windows [95 and NT] works as well or provides as much freedom or flexibility. (5) Regarding advanced languages in general, GUILE seems to be ahead as far as technical merit and licensing go, but Haskell certainly has some important advantages over Scheme. Improving the license of a Haskell implementation would make it a favorable alternative to GUILE. (6) Is there any license other than the GPL that better ensures that important software technology remains freely available? IV. Conclusion Some believe the GPL and functional languages lead to the development of good, reliable software. I feel that a GPL on this important software will (A) encourage the use and development of Haskell, and (B) help free OSes maintain a place in an important area of CS research. Now, (B) is all well and good and encourages us to care but of course is irrelevant to Haskell implementors. (A) is what I need help on. Can anyone help? V. Appendix ______________________________________________________________________________ ___ ___ ___ ___ __________ __________ / / / / / / / / / _______/ / _______/ Hugs 1.4 / /___/ / / / / / / / _____ / /______ / ____ / / / / / / / /_ / /______ / The Nottingham and Yale / / / / / /___/ / / /___/ / _______/ / Haskell User's System /__/ /__/ /_________/ /_________/ /_________/ Copyright (c) The University of Nottingham and Yale University, 1994-1997. Bug reports: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web: http://www.haskell.org/hugs. CONDITIONS OF USE, DUPLICATION AND DISTRIBUTION (*) Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute Hugs for any personal or educational use without fee is hereby granted, provided that: a) This copyright notice is retained in both source code and supporting documentation. b) Modified versions of this software are redistributed only if accompanied by a complete history (date, author, description) of modifications made; the intention here is to give appropriate credit to those involved, while simultaneously ensuring that any recipient can determine the origin of the software. c) The same conditions are also applied to any software system derived either in full or in part from Hugs. No part of Hugs may be distributed as a part or accompaniment of any commercial package or product without the explicit written permission of the author and copyright holder. The distribution of commercial products which require or make use of Hugs will normally be permitted if the Hugs distribution is supplied separately to and offered at cost price to the purchaser of the commercial product. In specifying these conditions, our intention is to permit widespread use of Hugs while, at the same time, protecting the interests, rights and efforts of all those involved. Please contact the author and copyright holder to arrange alternative terms and conditions if your intended use of Hugs is not permitted by the terms and conditions in this notice. While Hugs has much in common with Gofer (from which it was originally derived), there are also some significant differences between the two systems. For example, Hugs conforms closely to the Haskell standard while Gofer was intended as a more experimental system. As a result, any and all rights previously conferred for the use, duplication, and distribution of Gofer do NOT automatically carry over to Hugs. NOTICE: Hugs is provided "as is" without express or implied warranty. (*) For the purposes of this document, the word "Hugs" refers both to the software and its accompanying documentation. ______________________________________________________________________________ -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
