Thanks for this patch!

I've kicked off a discussion with hackage administrators and the haskell committee about the general approach we want to take to the license situation on hackage, and how to properly document our policies. It seems to me that merging this makes sense regardless, but I don't know what others may think?

Cheers,

Gershom

On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 9:58 AM, Francesco Ariis <fa-ml@ariis.it> wrote:

Dear Cabal developers,
    spurred by this discussion on haskell-cafe [1], I attach a small patch
on licence warnings. It:

    - reverts AllRightsReserved as PackageDistInexcusable, as it was
      before this commit [2].
      Reading the comments in Check.hs, this datatype is for issues which
      "[are] OK in the author's environment but [are] almost certain to be
      a portability problems for other environments", which I think it is
      the case.

    - adds a PackageDistSuspicious warning on OtherLicense. The text of
      the warning encourages the developer to choose from licences
      suggested by the OSI or FSF, if they don't want to use a licence
      recognised by cabal.

Thanks
-Francesco


[1] http://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell-cafe/2015-February/118411.html
[2] https://github.com/haskell/cabal/commit/8d449ba3231445726272eac4dcf7b2b4a5508db9

_______________________________________________
cabal-devel mailing list
cabal-devel@haskell.org
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cabal-devel

_______________________________________________
cabal-devel mailing list
cabal-devel@haskell.org
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cabal-devel