On Sun, Mar 08, 2015 at 01:19:34PM -0400, Carter Schonwald wrote: > On Sat, Mar 7, 2015 at 3:43 PM, Francesco Ariis <fa...@ariis.it> wrote: > > 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?"). > > there will never be an expressive enough licenses datatype. Law is > complicated and fluid and changing. Period.
Well, I ran a little test on the index of packages [1], to check the most popular licences there and see how widespread is the use of OtherLicense. BSD3 5007 MIT 976 GPL 460 OtherLicense 307 GPL-3 286 PublicDomain 199 LGPL 145 GPL-2 81 Apache-2.0 53 LGPL-3 51 LGPL-2.1 49 parse-error 43 none 36 BSD2 23 AGPL-3 21 BSD3 8 BSD4 5 OtherLicense 3 Apache License, Version 2.0 3 LGPL-2 2 <Misc> 13 Parsing was extremely crude, but enough to conclude that OtherLicense amounts to less than 4% of the total amount of packages (7771). If we find a way to deal with dual licences and add some missing licences to Cabal (e.g. Artistic License 2), the Licence datatype will cover 99%+ of usage, which is expressive enough in my opinion (and it's not we cannot add more stuff as new licenses pop up). [1] https://hackage.haskell.org/packages/index.tar.gz _______________________________________________ cabal-devel mailing list cabal-devel@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cabal-devel