This is strange, I thought that cpphs should be specified in "build-tools:", not in "build-depends:".
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 9:51 PM, Daniel Trstenjak <daniel.trstenjak@gmail.com> wrote:
I think that depedencies to binaries, like cpphs, should be treated
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).
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