there will never be an expressive enough licenses datatype. Law is
complicated and fluid and changing. Period.
On Sat, Mar 7, 2015 at 3:43 PM, Francesco Ariis <fa...@ariis.it> wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 07, 2015 at 12:50:19AM -0500, Carter Schonwald wrote:
> > i'm very uncomfortable with the "warn on other-license" change. I think
> > theres lots of valid reasons that someone may be using an amended license
> > (eg BSD / MIT plus an explicit patent license grant) that strictly more
> > open/free than any standard OSS license on the planet.
>
> I had a brief chat with dcoutts on freenode/#hackage, he informed me
> he would rather have the AllRightsReserved patch on hackage-server
> (and only in the public server branch) rather than cabal.
>
> dcoutts also expressed similar objections on OtherLicense's warning
> (on the ground that dual licensing isn't supported by cabal yet, a
> a legitimate usage of OtherLicense).
>
> My view is that, with an expressive enough License datatype which covers
> an ample portion of usages, the warning could still be pragmatically
> useful ("do you really have a reason to draft a new document when there
> is probably something tried and tested out there which could do for your
> case?").
>
> Thanks for sharing your opinion!
> _______________________________________________
> cabal-devel mailing list
> cabal-devel@haskell.org
> http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cabal-devel
>
_______________________________________________
cabal-devel mailing list
cabal-devel@haskell.org
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cabal-devel
