On Sun, Mar 01, 2015 at 12:17:17AM -0500, Gershom B wrote:
For the record, the current behaviour is as follows.
[..]
It would be good to specify that we ask that OtherLicense indeed be another recognized open-source license. That said, I do not feel strongly about how much care we take to enforce this. We should definitely better document this and other elements of hackage policy, and I know discussions about that have in fact been underway.
I agree that being able to filter Hackage packages on license and other considerations (say, build reports on various systems) would be a great feature. Some such improvements have been floated as GSoC projects. I would encourage those that feel strongly about such features to consider getting involved with development of the hackage server.
Thanks for the explanation Gershom. Hackage hacking is quite a mysterious topic for me now, but I wrote a small cabal patch to encourage devs to pick recognized free/open-source licenses. [1] https://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/cabal-devel/2015-March/010019.html