Cabal && license combinations
duncan.coutts at googlemail.com
Tue Feb 8 10:05:38 CET 2011
On Mon, 2011-02-07 at 14:42 +0000, Malcolm Wallace wrote:
> > It seems then that a package should be the least restrictive
> > combination of all the licenses in all the contained modules.
> Omit the words "least restrictive" and I think you are correct.
> To combine licences, just aggregate them. There is no lattice of
> subsumption; no "more" or "less" restrictive ordering. It's simple:
> you must obey all of them. Some aggregations introduce a
> contradiction of terms, so you cannot legally aggregate those modules
> without breaking some term. But if the terms of the aggregated
> licences are compatible rather than contradictory, then all is good.
Right, so the effect of per-file/mixed licenses could be achieved by
letting packages specify a list of licenses:
license: Foo, Bar
Meaning you may copy/distribute provided you comply with all these
Note that this does not cover dual licensing, e.g. Foo or Bar at
More information about the cabal-devel