Re: [Haskell-cafe] Re: Thinking about what's missing in our library coverage

On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 10:46 AM, Colin Paul Adams wrote:

...

...

...

...

...

"Tom" == Tom Tobin writes:

   >> This can surely be tackled by cabal, as it already has the    >> license information.

   Tom> I don't see this as a real solution; why would a package be

It should be done anyway, irrespective of the platform.

Yes, that would be handy option for cabal-install in general.

   Tom> added to the platform in the first place if a large    Tom> proportion of developers couldn't make use of it?

Anyone can make use of it. You may choose not to (or your boss may choose for you), but that doesn't mean you can't.

The benefit of a standard library is that you can say "I need a library to handle X" and if a library addressing X is in the standard library, you're set. If you then need to worry about the GPL — and this is a reality that can't be written off as a mere "choice" — why bother with the platform in the first place? Non-GPL developers would be better off sticking with hackage in that case.