Re: [Haskell-cafe] Hackage suggestion: Gather the list of the licenses of all dependencies of a package

I'm not quite certain what to make of: If you have a commercial use for cpphs, and feel the terms of the (L)GPL are too onerous, you have the option of distributing unmodified binaries (only, not sources) under the terms of a different licence (see LICENCE-commercial). It seems like that's saying "if you really want to, use the BSD license instead." But I'm not sure what the legal meaning of "If you have a commercial use" is. Malcolm: could you clarify what the meaning is? On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 6:37 PM, Felipe Almeida Lessa < felipe.lessa@gmail.com> wrote:

From [1] I gather that its license really is LGPL/GPL. However, when used as a preprocessor its license doesn't really matter. Many packages on that list have a LGPL "taint" because one of its deps use cpphs. So the whitelist of cpphs would be stating that nobody is using cpphs as a library (which may be false, but is mostly true ;).

[1] http://code.haskell.org/cpphs/README

On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 1:08 PM, Michael Snoyman wrote:

...

Are you referring to:

http://code.haskell.org/cpphs/LICENCE-commercial

If the package is dual-licensed BSD3 and LGPL, maybe Malcolm could change the cabal file to mention the BSD3 so that its package description is less intimidating?

On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 4:12 PM, Felipe Almeida Lessa wrote:

...

While you're at it, maybe whitelisting cpphs would be nice as well =).

On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 12:03 PM, Michael Snoyman wrote:

...

On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 3:53 PM, Vincent Hanquez

wrote:

...

...

...

On 12/13/2012 12:51 PM, Michael Snoyman wrote:

...

I think that's a great idea. I just implemented this on PackDeps:

http://packdeps.haskellers.com/licenses

As with all features on that site, I'll be happy to deprecate it as soon as Hackage incorporates the feature in the future.

awesome Michael !

However i think ithis shouldn't take dependencies from tests and benchmarks. This doesn't make differences for the "overall" license that the library "exposes".

-- Vincent

Hmm, that's a good point. I'll admit I hadn't really thought this through, but I can actually see an argument going both ways on this:

* Viral licenses won't actually affect you if they're just used for test suites. * But company lawyers will probably be nervous about it anyway.

Nonetheless, I think you have the right of it. Unless people say otherwise, I'm going to implement Vincent's change.

Michael

_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe

-- Felipe.

-- Felipe.