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

[Petr P]

This is strange, I thought that cpphs should be specified in
"build-tools:", not in "build-depends:".
<
http://www.haskell.org/cabal/users-guide/developing-packages.html#build-information
>

Best regards,
Petr


2012/12/13 Michael Snoyman <michael at snoyman.com>

>
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 9:51 PM, Daniel Trstenjak <
> daniel.trstenjak at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> 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).
>>
>> I think that depedencies to binaries, like cpphs, should be treated
>> 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 at 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 at haskell.org
> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell-cafe/attachments/20121215/833c9b36/attachment.htm>