Dual-licensing the package on Hackage

David Sorokin

30 Jul 2013 30 Jul '13

3:56 a.m.

Hi, Cafe! Probably, it was asked before but I could not find an answer with help of Google. I have a library which is hosted on Hackage. The library is licensed under BSD3. It is a very specialized library for a small target group. Now I'm going to relicense it and release a new version already under the dual-license: GPLv3 and commercial. In most cases GPL will be sufficient as this is not a library in common sense. Can I specify the GPL license in the .cabal file, or should I write OtherLicense? I'm going to add the information about dual-licensing in the description section of the .cabal file, though. Thanks, David

Show replies by date

Vo Minh Thu

30 Jul 30 Jul

4:53 a.m.

2013/7/30 David Sorokin :

...

Hi, Cafe!

Probably, it was asked before but I could not find an answer with help of Google.

I have a library which is hosted on Hackage. The library is licensed under BSD3. It is a very specialized library for a small target group. Now I'm going to relicense it and release a new version already under the dual-license: GPLv3 and commercial. In most cases GPL will be sufficient as this is not a library in common sense.

Can I specify the GPL license in the .cabal file, or should I write OtherLicense?

I'm going to add the information about dual-licensing in the description section of the .cabal file, though.

Although you can indeed license your software under different licences, in the case of your question it doesn't seem to be a concern with Hackage: The license displayed on Hackage is the one for the corresponding .cabal file (or at least I think it is). So you issue your new version with the changed license, the new version is available with the new license, the old versions are still available with the old license. Everything is fine. Now about the dual licensing. It seems it is again not a problem with Hackage: you are not granting through Hackage such a commercial license. I guess you provide it upon request (for some money). I.e. when I download your library from Hackage, I receive it under the terms of the BSD (or GPL) license you have chosen, not under a commercial license that I would have to receive through other means. Otherwise the semantic of the license field on Hackage would mean the library is available under such and such licenses, which are not granted to you when you download the library on Hackage. Only when you download the package you can actually find the licensing terms (e.g. in the LICENSE file). But this seems unlikely to me. Cheers, Thu

David Sorokin

5:44 a.m.

Thanks Thu, I agree with you. Just I don't know what to write in the license field of the .cabal file: GPL or OtherLicense. The both choices seem correct to me and misleading at the same time. Cheers, David 30.07.2013, в 12:53, Vo Minh Thu написал(а):

...

2013/7/30 David Sorokin :

...
Hi, Cafe!

Probably, it was asked before but I could not find an answer with help of Google.

I have a library which is hosted on Hackage. The library is licensed under BSD3. It is a very specialized library for a small target group. Now I'm going to relicense it and release a new version already under the dual-license: GPLv3 and commercial. In most cases GPL will be sufficient as this is not a library in common sense.

Can I specify the GPL license in the .cabal file, or should I write OtherLicense?

I'm going to add the information about dual-licensing in the description section of the .cabal file, though.

Although you can indeed license your software under different licences, in the case of your question it doesn't seem to be a concern with Hackage:

The license displayed on Hackage is the one for the corresponding .cabal file (or at least I think it is). So you issue your new version with the changed license, the new version is available with the new license, the old versions are still available with the old license. Everything is fine.

Now about the dual licensing. It seems it is again not a problem with Hackage: you are not granting through Hackage such a commercial license. I guess you provide it upon request (for some money). I.e. when I download your library from Hackage, I receive it under the terms of the BSD (or GPL) license you have chosen, not under a commercial license that I would have to receive through other means.

Otherwise the semantic of the license field on Hackage would mean the library is available under such and such licenses, which are not granted to you when you download the library on Hackage. Only when you download the package you can actually find the licensing terms (e.g. in the LICENSE file). But this seems unlikely to me.

Cheers, Thu

Vo Minh Thu

5:49 a.m.

Well, if you are willing to grant me a GPL license when I download your package through Hackage, GPL is accurate. Again you are not providing me with another license. Obtaining a commercial license should be seeked through other means, perhaps by sending you an email. I don't think Hackage should be used for making adverts, but I think it would be ok to state in the description of the package something along the lines of "commercial licenses are available through example.com". 2013/7/30 David Sorokin :

...

Thanks Thu,

I agree with you. Just I don't know what to write in the license field of the .cabal file: GPL or OtherLicense. The both choices seem correct to me and misleading at the same time.

Cheers, David

30.07.2013, в 12:53, Vo Minh Thu написал(а):

...
2013/7/30 David Sorokin :

...
Hi, Cafe!

Probably, it was asked before but I could not find an answer with help of Google.

I have a library which is hosted on Hackage. The library is licensed under BSD3. It is a very specialized library for a small target group. Now I'm going to relicense it and release a new version already under the dual-license: GPLv3 and commercial. In most cases GPL will be sufficient as this is not a library in common sense.

Can I specify the GPL license in the .cabal file, or should I write OtherLicense?

I'm going to add the information about dual-licensing in the description section of the .cabal file, though.

Although you can indeed license your software under different licences, in the case of your question it doesn't seem to be a concern with Hackage:

The license displayed on Hackage is the one for the corresponding .cabal file (or at least I think it is). So you issue your new version with the changed license, the new version is available with the new license, the old versions are still available with the old license. Everything is fine.

Now about the dual licensing. It seems it is again not a problem with Hackage: you are not granting through Hackage such a commercial license. I guess you provide it upon request (for some money). I.e. when I download your library from Hackage, I receive it under the terms of the BSD (or GPL) license you have chosen, not under a commercial license that I would have to receive through other means.

Otherwise the semantic of the license field on Hackage would mean the library is available under such and such licenses, which are not granted to you when you download the library on Hackage. Only when you download the package you can actually find the licensing terms (e.g. in the LICENSE file). But this seems unlikely to me.

Cheers, Thu

David Thomas

10:05 a.m.

One question is how much of a discovery/indexing role Hackage plays. There can be a tremendous difference in ease of obtaining a commercial license, and a restriction for "things I can use in a proprietary project, once I pay enough" seems like a legitimate use case. It also has some bearing on ease of contributing changes upstream - a project that is dual licensed will probably want well-documented transfer of ownership; a gpl only project may not. That said, I am less sure that Hackage needs to be the place to call that out. On Jul 30, 2013 2:51 AM, "Vo Minh Thu" wrote:

...

Well, if you are willing to grant me a GPL license when I download your package through Hackage, GPL is accurate.

Again you are not providing me with another license. Obtaining a commercial license should be seeked through other means, perhaps by sending you an email. I don't think Hackage should be used for making adverts, but I think it would be ok to state in the description of the package something along the lines of "commercial licenses are available through example.com".

...
Thanks Thu,

I agree with you. Just I don't know what to write in the license field of the .cabal file: GPL or OtherLicense. The both choices seem correct to me and misleading at the same time.

Cheers, David

30.07.2013, в 12:53, Vo Minh Thu написал(а):

...
2013/7/30 David Sorokin :

...
Hi, Cafe!

Probably, it was asked before but I could not find an answer with help of Google.

I have a library which is hosted on Hackage. The library is licensed under BSD3. It is a very specialized library for a small target group. Now I'm going to relicense it and release a new version already under the dual-license: GPLv3 and commercial. In most cases GPL will be sufficient as

2013/7/30 David Sorokin : this is not a library in common sense.

...
...
...
Can I specify the GPL license in the .cabal file, or should I write

OtherLicense?

...
I'm going to add the information about dual-licensing in the

description section of the .cabal file, though.

Although you can indeed license your software under different licences, in the case of your question it doesn't seem to be a concern with Hackage:

The license displayed on Hackage is the one for the corresponding .cabal file (or at least I think it is). So you issue your new version with the changed license, the new version is available with the new license, the old versions are still available with the old license. Everything is fine.

Now about the dual licensing. It seems it is again not a problem with Hackage: you are not granting through Hackage such a commercial license. I guess you provide it upon request (for some money). I.e. when I download your library from Hackage, I receive it under the terms of the BSD (or GPL) license you have chosen, not under a commercial license that I would have to receive through other means.

Otherwise the semantic of the license field on Hackage would mean the library is available under such and such licenses, which are not granted to you when you download the library on Hackage. Only when you download the package you can actually find the licensing terms (e.g. in the LICENSE file). But this seems unlikely to me.

Cheers, Thu

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

Krzysztof Skrzętnicki

5:49 a.m.

Perhaps it would be best if .cabal allowed to have more than one license listed. Another solution would be to use custom field, for example: License: GPL x-Other-License: Commercial, see License-Commercial.txt All best, Krzysztof Skrzętnicki On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 11:44 AM, David Sorokin wrote:

...

Thanks Thu,

I agree with you. Just I don't know what to write in the license field of the .cabal file: GPL or OtherLicense. The both choices seem correct to me and misleading at the same time.

Cheers, David

30.07.2013, в 12:53, Vo Minh Thu написал(а):

...
...
Hi, Cafe!

Probably, it was asked before but I could not find an answer with help of Google.

I have a library which is hosted on Hackage. The library is licensed under BSD3. It is a very specialized library for a small target group. Now I'm going to relicense it and release a new version already under the dual-license: GPLv3 and commercial. In most cases GPL will be sufficient as

2013/7/30 David Sorokin : this is not a library in common sense.

...
Can I specify the GPL license in the .cabal file, or should I write

OtherLicense?

...
I'm going to add the information about dual-licensing in the

description section of the .cabal file, though.

Although you can indeed license your software under different licences, in the case of your question it doesn't seem to be a concern with Hackage:

The license displayed on Hackage is the one for the corresponding .cabal file (or at least I think it is). So you issue your new version with the changed license, the new version is available with the new license, the old versions are still available with the old license. Everything is fine.

Now about the dual licensing. It seems it is again not a problem with Hackage: you are not granting through Hackage such a commercial license. I guess you provide it upon request (for some money). I.e. when I download your library from Hackage, I receive it under the terms of the BSD (or GPL) license you have chosen, not under a commercial license that I would have to receive through other means.

Otherwise the semantic of the license field on Hackage would mean the library is available under such and such licenses, which are not granted to you when you download the library on Hackage. Only when you download the package you can actually find the licensing terms (e.g. in the LICENSE file). But this seems unlikely to me.

Cheers, Thu

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

Vo Minh Thu

5:57 a.m.

Unless you want to provide multiple open source licenses, I don't see the point: Anybody that needs a commercial license (and has some money) will simply ask for such a commercial license when seeing that the code is available under GPL. Another reason it is pointless is that you will certainly not want to list all the commercial licenses you have used/will use with different clients (there are virtually infinite commercial licenses that you can invent as needs arise: per seat, per core, per year, and so on depending on the clients/projects). I.e. you don't need to state upfront that commercial licences exist (although I understand that you think it is better to advertise your willingness to provide such commercial license, but a comment is enough, the fact is that license is not provided through Hackage). 2013/7/30 Krzysztof Skrzętnicki :

...

Perhaps it would be best if .cabal allowed to have more than one license listed.

Another solution would be to use custom field, for example:

License: GPL x-Other-License: Commercial, see License-Commercial.txt

All best, Krzysztof Skrzętnicki

On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 11:44 AM, David Sorokin wrote:

...
Thanks Thu,

I agree with you. Just I don't know what to write in the license field of the .cabal file: GPL or OtherLicense. The both choices seem correct to me and misleading at the same time.

Cheers, David

30.07.2013, в 12:53, Vo Minh Thu написал(а):

...
2013/7/30 David Sorokin :

...
Hi, Cafe!

Probably, it was asked before but I could not find an answer with help of Google.

I have a library which is hosted on Hackage. The library is licensed under BSD3. It is a very specialized library for a small target group. Now I'm going to relicense it and release a new version already under the dual-license: GPLv3 and commercial. In most cases GPL will be sufficient as this is not a library in common sense.

Can I specify the GPL license in the .cabal file, or should I write OtherLicense?

I'm going to add the information about dual-licensing in the description section of the .cabal file, though.

Although you can indeed license your software under different licences, in the case of your question it doesn't seem to be a concern with Hackage:

The license displayed on Hackage is the one for the corresponding .cabal file (or at least I think it is). So you issue your new version with the changed license, the new version is available with the new license, the old versions are still available with the old license. Everything is fine.

Now about the dual licensing. It seems it is again not a problem with Hackage: you are not granting through Hackage such a commercial license. I guess you provide it upon request (for some money). I.e. when I download your library from Hackage, I receive it under the terms of the BSD (or GPL) license you have chosen, not under a commercial license that I would have to receive through other means.

Otherwise the semantic of the license field on Hackage would mean the library is available under such and such licenses, which are not granted to you when you download the library on Hackage. Only when you download the package you can actually find the licensing terms (e.g. in the LICENSE file). But this seems unlikely to me.

Cheers, Thu

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

David Sorokin

6:46 a.m.

I am inclined to use value OtherLicense but state in the description that the package is available either under GPL or a commercial license. The latter must be requested to me. Then there would be no required additional steps to use the package under GPL. Only the LICENSE file must be appropriate. Probably, I will need two files LICENSE and LICENSE-GPLv3. In the former I will have add my copyright and write in a simple form that the license is dual and everyone is free to use the library under GPLv3 (which is the main use case) according the terms provided in the corresponded second file. Thanks, David On 30.07.2013 13:57, Vo Minh Thu wrote:

...

Unless you want to provide multiple open source licenses, I don't see the point:

Anybody that needs a commercial license (and has some money) will simply ask for such a commercial license when seeing that the code is available under GPL.

Another reason it is pointless is that you will certainly not want to list all the commercial licenses you have used/will use with different clients (there are virtually infinite commercial licenses that you can invent as needs arise: per seat, per core, per year, and so on depending on the clients/projects).

I.e. you don't need to state upfront that commercial licences exist (although I understand that you think it is better to advertise your willingness to provide such commercial license, but a comment is enough, the fact is that license is not provided through Hackage).

2013/7/30 Krzysztof Skrzętnicki :

...
Perhaps it would be best if .cabal allowed to have more than one license listed.

Another solution would be to use custom field, for example:

License: GPL x-Other-License: Commercial, see License-Commercial.txt

All best, Krzysztof Skrzętnicki

On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 11:44 AM, David Sorokin wrote:

...
Thanks Thu,

I agree with you. Just I don't know what to write in the license field of the .cabal file: GPL or OtherLicense. The both choices seem correct to me and misleading at the same time.

Cheers, David

30.07.2013, в 12:53, Vo Minh Thu написал(а):

...
...
Hi, Cafe!

Probably, it was asked before but I could not find an answer with help of Google.

I have a library which is hosted on Hackage. The library is licensed under BSD3. It is a very specialized library for a small target group. Now I'm going to relicense it and release a new version already under the dual-license: GPLv3 and commercial. In most cases GPL will be sufficient as this is not a library in common sense.

Can I specify the GPL license in the .cabal file, or should I write OtherLicense?

I'm going to add the information about dual-licensing in the description section of the .cabal file, though. Although you can indeed license your software under different

2013/7/30 David Sorokin : licences, in the case of your question it doesn't seem to be a concern with Hackage:

The license displayed on Hackage is the one for the corresponding .cabal file (or at least I think it is). So you issue your new version with the changed license, the new version is available with the new license, the old versions are still available with the old license. Everything is fine.

Now about the dual licensing. It seems it is again not a problem with Hackage: you are not granting through Hackage such a commercial license. I guess you provide it upon request (for some money). I.e. when I download your library from Hackage, I receive it under the terms of the BSD (or GPL) license you have chosen, not under a commercial license that I would have to receive through other means.

Otherwise the semantic of the license field on Hackage would mean the library is available under such and such licenses, which are not granted to you when you download the library on Hackage. Only when you download the package you can actually find the licensing terms (e.g. in the LICENSE file). But this seems unlikely to me.

Cheers, Thu

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

Jan Stolarek

6:56 a.m.

I'd say "OtherLicense" because: data License = GPL3 is different from data License = Commercial | GPL3 I hope this analogy to Haskell data types is convincing :) Janek ----- Oryginalna wiadomość ----- Od: "David Sorokin" Do: "Vo Minh Thu" DW: "Haskell Cafe" Wysłane: wtorek, 30 lipiec 2013 11:46:00 Temat: Re: [Haskell-cafe] Dual-licensing the package on Hackage I am inclined to use value OtherLicense but state in the description that the package is available either under GPL or a commercial license. The latter must be requested to me. Then there would be no required additional steps to use the package under GPL. Only the LICENSE file must be appropriate. Probably, I will need two files LICENSE and LICENSE-GPLv3. In the former I will have add my copyright and write in a simple form that the license is dual and everyone is free to use the library under GPLv3 (which is the main use case) according the terms provided in the corresponded second file. Thanks, David On 30.07.2013 13:57, Vo Minh Thu wrote:

...

Unless you want to provide multiple open source licenses, I don't see the point:

Anybody that needs a commercial license (and has some money) will simply ask for such a commercial license when seeing that the code is available under GPL.

Another reason it is pointless is that you will certainly not want to list all the commercial licenses you have used/will use with different clients (there are virtually infinite commercial licenses that you can invent as needs arise: per seat, per core, per year, and so on depending on the clients/projects).

I.e. you don't need to state upfront that commercial licences exist (although I understand that you think it is better to advertise your willingness to provide such commercial license, but a comment is enough, the fact is that license is not provided through Hackage).

2013/7/30 Krzysztof Skrzętnicki :

...
Perhaps it would be best if .cabal allowed to have more than one license listed.

Another solution would be to use custom field, for example:

License: GPL x-Other-License: Commercial, see License-Commercial.txt

All best, Krzysztof Skrzętnicki

On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 11:44 AM, David Sorokin wrote:

...
Thanks Thu,

I agree with you. Just I don't know what to write in the license field of the .cabal file: GPL or OtherLicense. The both choices seem correct to me and misleading at the same time.

Cheers, David

30.07.2013, в 12:53, Vo Minh Thu написал(а):

...
...
Hi, Cafe!

Probably, it was asked before but I could not find an answer with help of Google.

I have a library which is hosted on Hackage. The library is licensed under BSD3. It is a very specialized library for a small target group. Now I'm going to relicense it and release a new version already under the dual-license: GPLv3 and commercial. In most cases GPL will be sufficient as this is not a library in common sense.

Can I specify the GPL license in the .cabal file, or should I write OtherLicense?

I'm going to add the information about dual-licensing in the description section of the .cabal file, though. Although you can indeed license your software under different

2013/7/30 David Sorokin : licences, in the case of your question it doesn't seem to be a concern with Hackage:

The license displayed on Hackage is the one for the corresponding .cabal file (or at least I think it is). So you issue your new version with the changed license, the new version is available with the new license, the old versions are still available with the old license. Everything is fine.

Now about the dual licensing. It seems it is again not a problem with Hackage: you are not granting through Hackage such a commercial license. I guess you provide it upon request (for some money). I.e. when I download your library from Hackage, I receive it under the terms of the BSD (or GPL) license you have chosen, not under a commercial license that I would have to receive through other means.

Otherwise the semantic of the license field on Hackage would mean the library is available under such and such licenses, which are not granted to you when you download the library on Hackage. Only when you download the package you can actually find the licensing terms (e.g. in the LICENSE file). But this seems unlikely to me.

Cheers, Thu

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

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

Vo Minh Thu

7:03 a.m.

No. If I provide a library to you stating you can use it under the term of the GPL3, this does not prevent me from providing it to someone else under a different license (provided I have the rights to do so, for instance because I am the copyright owner). So as far as you're concerned (and this is the case with Hackage in this dicussion), the library is provided under the terms of the GPL. There is no point saying "but if you pay me I can provide it under some other terms". 2013/7/30 Jan Stolarek :

...

I'd say "OtherLicense" because:

data License = GPL3

is different from

data License = Commercial | GPL3

I hope this analogy to Haskell data types is convincing :)

Janek

----- Oryginalna wiadomość ----- Od: "David Sorokin" Do: "Vo Minh Thu" DW: "Haskell Cafe" Wysłane: wtorek, 30 lipiec 2013 11:46:00 Temat: Re: [Haskell-cafe] Dual-licensing the package on Hackage

I am inclined to use value OtherLicense but state in the description that the package is available either under GPL or a commercial license. The latter must be requested to me. Then there would be no required additional steps to use the package under GPL. Only the LICENSE file must be appropriate. Probably, I will need two files LICENSE and LICENSE-GPLv3. In the former I will have add my copyright and write in a simple form that the license is dual and everyone is free to use the library under GPLv3 (which is the main use case) according the terms provided in the corresponded second file.

Thanks, David

On 30.07.2013 13:57, Vo Minh Thu wrote:

...
Unless you want to provide multiple open source licenses, I don't see the point:

Anybody that needs a commercial license (and has some money) will simply ask for such a commercial license when seeing that the code is available under GPL.

Another reason it is pointless is that you will certainly not want to list all the commercial licenses you have used/will use with different clients (there are virtually infinite commercial licenses that you can invent as needs arise: per seat, per core, per year, and so on depending on the clients/projects).

I.e. you don't need to state upfront that commercial licences exist (although I understand that you think it is better to advertise your willingness to provide such commercial license, but a comment is enough, the fact is that license is not provided through Hackage).

2013/7/30 Krzysztof Skrzętnicki :

...
Perhaps it would be best if .cabal allowed to have more than one license listed.

Another solution would be to use custom field, for example:

License: GPL x-Other-License: Commercial, see License-Commercial.txt

All best, Krzysztof Skrzętnicki

On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 11:44 AM, David Sorokin wrote:

...
Thanks Thu,

I agree with you. Just I don't know what to write in the license field of the .cabal file: GPL or OtherLicense. The both choices seem correct to me and misleading at the same time.

Cheers, David

30.07.2013, в 12:53, Vo Minh Thu написал(а):

...
...
Hi, Cafe!

Probably, it was asked before but I could not find an answer with help of Google.

I have a library which is hosted on Hackage. The library is licensed under BSD3. It is a very specialized library for a small target group. Now I'm going to relicense it and release a new version already under the dual-license: GPLv3 and commercial. In most cases GPL will be sufficient as this is not a library in common sense.

Can I specify the GPL license in the .cabal file, or should I write OtherLicense?

I'm going to add the information about dual-licensing in the description section of the .cabal file, though. Although you can indeed license your software under different

2013/7/30 David Sorokin : licences, in the case of your question it doesn't seem to be a concern with Hackage:

The license displayed on Hackage is the one for the corresponding .cabal file (or at least I think it is). So you issue your new version with the changed license, the new version is available with the new license, the old versions are still available with the old license. Everything is fine.

Now about the dual licensing. It seems it is again not a problem with Hackage: you are not granting through Hackage such a commercial license. I guess you provide it upon request (for some money). I.e. when I download your library from Hackage, I receive it under the terms of the BSD (or GPL) license you have chosen, not under a commercial license that I would have to receive through other means.

Otherwise the semantic of the license field on Hackage would mean the library is available under such and such licenses, which are not granted to you when you download the library on Hackage. Only when you download the package you can actually find the licensing terms (e.g. in the LICENSE file). But this seems unlikely to me.

Cheers, Thu

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

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

Daniel F

8:08 a.m.

I second this. Also, I would like to point out that the product you get from Hackage (the source code) will be licensed under the GPL. Nobody can get the commercial version of the product from Hackage, as one has to contact you (the owner) directly or in some other manner. I guess that is what Thu is trying to say. On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 3:03 PM, Vo Minh Thu wrote:

...

No. If I provide a library to you stating you can use it under the term of the GPL3, this does not prevent me from providing it to someone else under a different license (provided I have the rights to do so, for instance because I am the copyright owner).

So as far as you're concerned (and this is the case with Hackage in this dicussion), the library is provided under the terms of the GPL. There is no point saying "but if you pay me I can provide it under some other terms".

2013/7/30 Jan Stolarek :

...
I'd say "OtherLicense" because:

data License = GPL3

is different from

data License = Commercial | GPL3

I hope this analogy to Haskell data types is convincing :)

Janek

----- Oryginalna wiadomość ----- Od: "David Sorokin" Do: "Vo Minh Thu" DW: "Haskell Cafe" Wysłane: wtorek, 30 lipiec 2013 11:46:00 Temat: Re: [Haskell-cafe] Dual-licensing the package on Hackage

I am inclined to use value OtherLicense but state in the description that the package is available either under GPL or a commercial license. The latter must be requested to me. Then there would be no required additional steps to use the package under GPL. Only the LICENSE file must be appropriate. Probably, I will need two files LICENSE and LICENSE-GPLv3. In the former I will have add my copyright and write in a simple form that the license is dual and everyone is free to use the library under GPLv3 (which is the main use case) according the terms provided in the corresponded second file.

Thanks, David

On 30.07.2013 13:57, Vo Minh Thu wrote:

...
Unless you want to provide multiple open source licenses, I don't see the point:

Anybody that needs a commercial license (and has some money) will simply ask for such a commercial license when seeing that the code is available under GPL.

Another reason it is pointless is that you will certainly not want to list all the commercial licenses you have used/will use with different clients (there are virtually infinite commercial licenses that you can invent as needs arise: per seat, per core, per year, and so on depending on the clients/projects).

I.e. you don't need to state upfront that commercial licences exist (although I understand that you think it is better to advertise your willingness to provide such commercial license, but a comment is enough, the fact is that license is not provided through Hackage).

2013/7/30 Krzysztof Skrzętnicki :

...
Perhaps it would be best if .cabal allowed to have more than one license listed.

Another solution would be to use custom field, for example:

License: GPL x-Other-License: Commercial, see License-Commercial.txt

All best, Krzysztof Skrzętnicki

On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 11:44 AM, David Sorokin wrote:

...
Thanks Thu,

I agree with you. Just I don't know what to write in the license field of the .cabal file: GPL or OtherLicense. The both choices seem correct to me and misleading at the same time.

Cheers, David

30.07.2013, в 12:53, Vo Minh Thu написал(а):

...
2013/7/30 David Sorokin : > Hi, Cafe! > > Probably, it was asked before but I could not find an answer with help > of Google. > > I have a library which is hosted on Hackage. The library is licensed > under BSD3. It is a very specialized library for a small target group. Now > I'm going to relicense it and release a new version already under the > dual-license: GPLv3 and commercial. In most cases GPL will be sufficient as > this is not a library in common sense. > > Can I specify the GPL license in the .cabal file, or should I write > OtherLicense? > > I'm going to add the information about dual-licensing in the > description section of the .cabal file, though. Although you can indeed license your software under different licences, in the case of your question it doesn't seem to be a concern with Hackage:

The license displayed on Hackage is the one for the corresponding .cabal file (or at least I think it is). So you issue your new version with the changed license, the new version is available with the new license, the old versions are still available with the old license. Everything is fine.

Now about the dual licensing. It seems it is again not a problem with Hackage: you are not granting through Hackage such a commercial license. I guess you provide it upon request (for some money). I.e. when I download your library from Hackage, I receive it under the terms of the BSD (or GPL) license you have chosen, not under a commercial license that I would have to receive through other means.

Otherwise the semantic of the license field on Hackage would mean the library is available under such and such licenses, which are not granted to you when you download the library on Hackage. Only when you download the package you can actually find the licensing terms (e.g. in the LICENSE file). But this seems unlikely to me.

Cheers, Thu

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

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

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

-- Sincerely yours, -- Daniil

Vo Minh Thu

6:56 a.m.

Again I haven't seen a reason to do what you propose: virtually every single GPL library author would gladly accept money for their work to be used in a closed source setting, no need to use OtherLicense to reach that effect. On the other hand, you will stop people interested in open source to look further into your project if they see OtherLicense instead of a well-known open-source license. 2013/7/30 David Sorokin :

...

I am inclined to use value OtherLicense but state in the description that the package is available either under GPL or a commercial license. The latter must be requested to me. Then there would be no required additional steps to use the package under GPL. Only the LICENSE file must be appropriate. Probably, I will need two files LICENSE and LICENSE-GPLv3. In the former I will have add my copyright and write in a simple form that the license is dual and everyone is free to use the library under GPLv3 (which is the main use case) according the terms provided in the corresponded second file.

Thanks, David

On 30.07.2013 13:57, Vo Minh Thu wrote:

...
Unless you want to provide multiple open source licenses, I don't see the point:

Anybody that needs a commercial license (and has some money) will simply ask for such a commercial license when seeing that the code is available under GPL.

Another reason it is pointless is that you will certainly not want to list all the commercial licenses you have used/will use with different clients (there are virtually infinite commercial licenses that you can invent as needs arise: per seat, per core, per year, and so on depending on the clients/projects).

I.e. you don't need to state upfront that commercial licences exist (although I understand that you think it is better to advertise your willingness to provide such commercial license, but a comment is enough, the fact is that license is not provided through Hackage).

2013/7/30 Krzysztof Skrzętnicki :

...
Perhaps it would be best if .cabal allowed to have more than one license listed.

Another solution would be to use custom field, for example:

License: GPL x-Other-License: Commercial, see License-Commercial.txt

All best, Krzysztof Skrzętnicki

On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 11:44 AM, David Sorokin wrote:

...
Thanks Thu,

I agree with you. Just I don't know what to write in the license field of the .cabal file: GPL or OtherLicense. The both choices seem correct to me and misleading at the same time.

Cheers, David

30.07.2013, в 12:53, Vo Minh Thu написал(а):

...
2013/7/30 David Sorokin :

...
Hi, Cafe!

Probably, it was asked before but I could not find an answer with help of Google.

I have a library which is hosted on Hackage. The library is licensed under BSD3. It is a very specialized library for a small target group. Now I'm going to relicense it and release a new version already under the dual-license: GPLv3 and commercial. In most cases GPL will be sufficient as this is not a library in common sense.

Can I specify the GPL license in the .cabal file, or should I write OtherLicense?

I'm going to add the information about dual-licensing in the description section of the .cabal file, though.

Although you can indeed license your software under different licences, in the case of your question it doesn't seem to be a concern with Hackage:

The license displayed on Hackage is the one for the corresponding .cabal file (or at least I think it is). So you issue your new version with the changed license, the new version is available with the new license, the old versions are still available with the old license. Everything is fine.

Now about the dual licensing. It seems it is again not a problem with Hackage: you are not granting through Hackage such a commercial license. I guess you provide it upon request (for some money). I.e. when I download your library from Hackage, I receive it under the terms of the BSD (or GPL) license you have chosen, not under a commercial license that I would have to receive through other means.

Otherwise the semantic of the license field on Hackage would mean the library is available under such and such licenses, which are not granted to you when you download the library on Hackage. Only when you download the package you can actually find the licensing terms (e.g. in the LICENSE file). But this seems unlikely to me.

Cheers, Thu

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

David Sorokin

7:02 a.m.

This is already another question what license to use :) On 30.07.2013 14:56, Vo Minh Thu wrote:

...

Again I haven't seen a reason to do what you propose: virtually every single GPL library author would gladly accept money for their work to be used in a closed source setting, no need to use OtherLicense to reach that effect.

On the other hand, you will stop people interested in open source to look further into your project if they see OtherLicense instead of a well-known open-source license.

2013/7/30 David Sorokin :

...
I am inclined to use value OtherLicense but state in the description that the package is available either under GPL or a commercial license. The latter must be requested to me. Then there would be no required additional steps to use the package under GPL. Only the LICENSE file must be appropriate. Probably, I will need two files LICENSE and LICENSE-GPLv3. In the former I will have add my copyright and write in a simple form that the license is dual and everyone is free to use the library under GPLv3 (which is the main use case) according the terms provided in the corresponded second file.

Thanks, David

On 30.07.2013 13:57, Vo Minh Thu wrote:

...
Unless you want to provide multiple open source licenses, I don't see the point:

Anybody that needs a commercial license (and has some money) will simply ask for such a commercial license when seeing that the code is available under GPL.

Another reason it is pointless is that you will certainly not want to list all the commercial licenses you have used/will use with different clients (there are virtually infinite commercial licenses that you can invent as needs arise: per seat, per core, per year, and so on depending on the clients/projects).

I.e. you don't need to state upfront that commercial licences exist (although I understand that you think it is better to advertise your willingness to provide such commercial license, but a comment is enough, the fact is that license is not provided through Hackage).

2013/7/30 Krzysztof Skrzętnicki :

...
Perhaps it would be best if .cabal allowed to have more than one license listed.

Another solution would be to use custom field, for example:

License: GPL x-Other-License: Commercial, see License-Commercial.txt

All best, Krzysztof Skrzętnicki

On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 11:44 AM, David Sorokin wrote:

...
Thanks Thu,

I agree with you. Just I don't know what to write in the license field of the .cabal file: GPL or OtherLicense. The both choices seem correct to me and misleading at the same time.

Cheers, David

30.07.2013, в 12:53, Vo Minh Thu написал(а):

...
2013/7/30 David Sorokin : > Hi, Cafe! > > Probably, it was asked before but I could not find an answer with help > of Google. > > I have a library which is hosted on Hackage. The library is licensed > under BSD3. It is a very specialized library for a small target group. > Now > I'm going to relicense it and release a new version already under the > dual-license: GPLv3 and commercial. In most cases GPL will be > sufficient as > this is not a library in common sense. > > Can I specify the GPL license in the .cabal file, or should I write > OtherLicense? > > I'm going to add the information about dual-licensing in the > description section of the .cabal file, though. Although you can indeed license your software under different licences, in the case of your question it doesn't seem to be a concern with Hackage:

The license displayed on Hackage is the one for the corresponding .cabal file (or at least I think it is). So you issue your new version with the changed license, the new version is available with the new license, the old versions are still available with the old license. Everything is fine.

Now about the dual licensing. It seems it is again not a problem with Hackage: you are not granting through Hackage such a commercial license. I guess you provide it upon request (for some money). I.e. when I download your library from Hackage, I receive it under the terms of the BSD (or GPL) license you have chosen, not under a commercial license that I would have to receive through other means.

Otherwise the semantic of the license field on Hackage would mean the library is available under such and such licenses, which are not granted to you when you download the library on Hackage. Only when you download the package you can actually find the licensing terms (e.g. in the LICENSE file). But this seems unlikely to me.

Cheers, Thu

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

Vo Minh Thu

7:05 a.m.

Sorry but I was not discussing which license to use. It seems I cannot get my point across... 2013/7/30 David Sorokin :

...

This is already another question what license to use :)

On 30.07.2013 14:56, Vo Minh Thu wrote:

...
Again I haven't seen a reason to do what you propose: virtually every single GPL library author would gladly accept money for their work to be used in a closed source setting, no need to use OtherLicense to reach that effect.

On the other hand, you will stop people interested in open source to look further into your project if they see OtherLicense instead of a well-known open-source license.

2013/7/30 David Sorokin :

...
I am inclined to use value OtherLicense but state in the description that the package is available either under GPL or a commercial license. The latter must be requested to me. Then there would be no required additional steps to use the package under GPL. Only the LICENSE file must be appropriate. Probably, I will need two files LICENSE and LICENSE-GPLv3. In the former I will have add my copyright and write in a simple form that the license is dual and everyone is free to use the library under GPLv3 (which is the main use case) according the terms provided in the corresponded second file.

Thanks, David

On 30.07.2013 13:57, Vo Minh Thu wrote:

...
Unless you want to provide multiple open source licenses, I don't see the point:

Anybody that needs a commercial license (and has some money) will simply ask for such a commercial license when seeing that the code is available under GPL.

Another reason it is pointless is that you will certainly not want to list all the commercial licenses you have used/will use with different clients (there are virtually infinite commercial licenses that you can invent as needs arise: per seat, per core, per year, and so on depending on the clients/projects).

I.e. you don't need to state upfront that commercial licences exist (although I understand that you think it is better to advertise your willingness to provide such commercial license, but a comment is enough, the fact is that license is not provided through Hackage).

2013/7/30 Krzysztof Skrzętnicki :

...
Perhaps it would be best if .cabal allowed to have more than one license listed.

Another solution would be to use custom field, for example:

License: GPL x-Other-License: Commercial, see License-Commercial.txt

All best, Krzysztof Skrzętnicki

On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 11:44 AM, David Sorokin wrote:

...
Thanks Thu,

I agree with you. Just I don't know what to write in the license field of the .cabal file: GPL or OtherLicense. The both choices seem correct to me and misleading at the same time.

Cheers, David

30.07.2013, в 12:53, Vo Minh Thu написал(а):

> 2013/7/30 David Sorokin : >> >> Hi, Cafe! >> >> Probably, it was asked before but I could not find an answer with >> help >> of Google. >> >> I have a library which is hosted on Hackage. The library is licensed >> under BSD3. It is a very specialized library for a small target >> group. >> Now >> I'm going to relicense it and release a new version already under >> the >> dual-license: GPLv3 and commercial. In most cases GPL will be >> sufficient as >> this is not a library in common sense. >> >> Can I specify the GPL license in the .cabal file, or should I write >> OtherLicense? >> >> I'm going to add the information about dual-licensing in the >> description section of the .cabal file, though. > > Although you can indeed license your software under different > licences, in the case of your question it doesn't seem to be a > concern > with Hackage: > > The license displayed on Hackage is the one for the corresponding > .cabal file (or at least I think it is). So you issue your new > version > with the changed license, the new version is available with the new > license, the old versions are still available with the old license. > Everything is fine. > > Now about the dual licensing. It seems it is again not a problem with > Hackage: you are not granting through Hackage such a commercial > license. I guess you provide it upon request (for some money). I.e. > when I download your library from Hackage, I receive it under the > terms of the BSD (or GPL) license you have chosen, not under a > commercial license that I would have to receive through other means. > > Otherwise the semantic of the license field on Hackage would mean the > library is available under such and such licenses, which are not > granted to you when you download the library on Hackage. Only when > you > download the package you can actually find the licensing terms (e.g. > in the LICENSE file). But this seems unlikely to me. > > Cheers, > Thu

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

4316

Age (days ago)

4316

Last active (days ago)

List overview

Download

13 comments

6 participants

participants (6)

Daniel F
David Sorokin
David Thomas
Jan Stolarek
Krzysztof Skrzętnicki
Vo Minh Thu