[Haskell-cafe] Hackage suggestion: Gather the list of the licenses of all dependencies of a package

[Michael Snoyman]

I'm not quite certain what to make of:

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).

It seems like that's saying "if you really want to, use the BSD license
instead." But I'm not sure what the legal meaning of "If you have a
commercial use" is. Malcolm: could you clarify what the meaning is?


On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 6:37 PM, Felipe Almeida Lessa <
felipe.lessa at gmail.com> wrote:

> From [1] I gather that its license really is LGPL/GPL.  However, when
> used as a preprocessor its license doesn't really matter.  Many
> packages on that list have a LGPL "taint" because one of its deps use
> cpphs.  So the whitelist of cpphs would be stating that nobody is
> using cpphs as a library (which may be false, but is mostly true ;).
>
> [1] http://code.haskell.org/cpphs/README
>
> On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 1:08 PM, Michael Snoyman <michael at snoyman.com>
> wrote:
> > Are you referring to:
> >
> > http://code.haskell.org/cpphs/LICENCE-commercial
> >
> > If the package is dual-licensed BSD3 and LGPL, maybe Malcolm could change
> > the cabal file to mention the BSD3 so that its package description is
> less
> > intimidating?
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 4:12 PM, Felipe Almeida Lessa
> > <felipe.lessa at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> While you're at it, maybe whitelisting cpphs would be nice as well =).
> >>
> >> On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 12:03 PM, Michael Snoyman <michael at snoyman.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 3:53 PM, Vincent Hanquez <tab at snarc.org>
> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> On 12/13/2012 12:51 PM, Michael Snoyman wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>> I think that's a great idea. I just implemented this on PackDeps:
> >> >>>
> >> >>> http://packdeps.haskellers.com/licenses
> >> >>>
> >> >>> As with all features on that site, I'll be happy to deprecate it as
> >> >>> soon
> >> >>> as Hackage incorporates the feature in the future.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> awesome Michael !
> >> >>
> >> >> However i think ithis shouldn't take dependencies from tests and
> >> >> benchmarks.
> >> >> This doesn't make differences for the "overall" license that the
> >> >> library
> >> >> "exposes".
> >> >>
> >> >> --
> >> >> Vincent
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Hmm, that's a good point. I'll admit I hadn't really thought this
> >> > through,
> >> > but I can actually see an argument going both ways on this:
> >> >
> >> > * Viral licenses won't actually affect you if they're just used for
> test
> >> > suites.
> >> > * But company lawyers will probably be nervous about it anyway.
> >> >
> >> > Nonetheless, I think you have the right of it. Unless people say
> >> > otherwise,
> >> > I'm going to implement Vincent's change.
> >> >
> >> > Michael
> >> >
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> > Haskell-Cafe mailing list
> >> > Haskell-Cafe at haskell.org
> >> > http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Felipe.
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Felipe.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell-cafe/attachments/20121213/9d1fd350/attachment-0001.htm>