On Tue, Mar 03, 2015 at 04:58:10PM +0100, Marcin Mrotek wrote:
Hackage accepts source packages only anyway. Why would anyone upload propertiary code and risk it being stolen? Noone uploads non-free software to Hackage, it's safe to assume noone will ever do (except perhaps as an act of trolling, and such packages could be just flat out removed), so why fix it when it isn't broken?
As Gershom B's messages states, as now AllRightsReserved would be rejected on hackage. I agree with you nothing is broken with this behaviour and I am not trying to 'fix' it in any way!
Also, as it was already pointed out by Mike Meyer, a list of pre-approved licenses doesn't solve the problem of compatibility and permission to actually build and distribute binaries at all, and it would be better solved by providing some tools to view and check licenses of the transitive closure of dependencies of a package (which would, incidentally, make it easy to weed out non-free packages too, for anyone who desires so)
This is not about solving the dependencies problem (kudos to the person coming up with such a package), it's about asking the developer, if s/he doesn't pick a licence known by cabal, to please choose some recognised open-source licence. It seems to me a sensible and straightforward documentation of what is already happening on hackage and I fail to see how this can look controversial.