This is strange, I thought that cpphs should be specified in "build-tools:", not in "build-depends:". < http://www.haskell.org/cabal/users-guide/developing-packages.html#build-info...
Best regards,
Petr
2012/12/13 Michael Snoyman
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 9:51 PM, Daniel Trstenjak < daniel.trstenjak@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 08:40:09PM +0200, Michael Snoyman wrote:
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).
I think that depedencies to binaries, like cpphs, should be treated differently than depedencies to libraries, because using a (L)GPL-ed binary mostly hasn't any implications for a "commercial" user and also for the output of a (L)GPL-ed binary usually the (L)GPL doesn't apply.
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
In the case of cpphs, there's no way to determine that we're using it as a library or an executable, since it's just listed in the build-depends.
Michael
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe