The cabal setup recognises a small set of licences which I don't think are well explained. I'm trying to put together a canonical list for setting up new projects. GPL: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.txt LGPL: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl.txt Thankfully the FSF are particularly anal^W well-organised about this kind of thing and they make it very easy to determine what each licence is and how to apply it BSD3/BSD4: There appears to be one explicitly-named BSD licence on the OSI site. There is also a closely related MIT licence. I don't know which would be which, if these are the two referred to in the licence data type. http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.html PublicDomain: The Creative Commons people have a public domain licence, though I am uncertain whether it is intended for code. Maybe this doesn't matter when what you're saying is "I give up all rights"? http://creativecommons.org/licenses/publicdomain/ AllRightsReserved: This is the very opposite of a PD licence and, I believe, the default licence when there is no other explicitly stated. However it would be nice to say as much rather than relying on people's legal knowledge. ;) OtherLicense: This one's easy enough... If anyone can fill in gaps and correct the errors in the above I think it would be useful. Obviously if this has been discussed elsewhere just point me off in the right direction! :) Cheers, D.
On 12/14/06, Dougal Stanton
The cabal setup recognises a small set of licences which I don't think are well explained. I'm trying to put together a canonical list for setting up new projects.
GPL: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.txt LGPL: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl.txt Thankfully the FSF are particularly anal^W well-organised about this kind of thing and they make it very easy to determine what each licence is and how to apply it
BSD3/BSD4: There appears to be one explicitly-named BSD licence on the OSI site. There is also a closely related MIT licence. I don't know which would be which, if these are the two referred to in the licence data type.
http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.html
Something that has always confused me about .cabal files is that BSD has two versions but GPL only has one version and I don't know if I'd be selecting GPL version 2 or 3. Could it be changed to support different versions of the GPL like it does with BSD? Thanks, Jason
Quoth Jason Dagit, nevermore:
Something that has always confused me about .cabal files is that BSD has two versions but GPL only has one version and I don't know if I'd be selecting GPL version 2 or 3. Could it be changed to support different versions of the GPL like it does with BSD?
Yes, there is an annoying inconsistency there. There will (soon) be a GPL2 and a GPL3 and they'll be easy to identify. But there's no easily differentiable BSD3 and BSD4. I suppose the GPL one can be excused since by default the licence is "version two or later". It's a special case to choose one in particular although this may change when v3 comes out. Some may want an explicit v2 (like the Linux kernel) while others will want the anti-patent protection which v3 intends to offer. D. -- Dougal Stanton
On Fri, Dec 15, 2006 at 03:14:32AM +0000, Dougal Stanton wrote:
The cabal setup recognises a small set of licences which I don't think are well explained. I'm trying to put together a canonical list for setting up new projects.
This has bugged me about cabal, why does it have a built in concept of any licenses at all? the data type should just be newtype License = License String This is actually a pervasive issue with the cabal codebase, a lot of things are hard-coded as datatypes which should just be uninterpreted thunks of data. John -- John Meacham - ⑆repetae.net⑆john⑈
participants (3)
-
Dougal Stanton -
Jason Dagit -
John Meacham