On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 11:11 PM, Duncan Coutts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The following hackage packages specify in their .cabal file: > > license: BSD4 > > Which is the 4-clause BSD license, ie the one with the advertising > clause. > > cabal-upload-0.3 > Chart-0.5 > FiniteMap-0.1 > haxr-3000.0.1 > haxr-th-1.0 > hbeat-0.1 > htar-0.1 > pcap-0.4.2 > tar-0.1.1.1 > unix-compat-0.1.2.1 > > Inspecting the LICENSE files for every one of these packages reveals > that they actually use the 3-clause BSD license. Not a single hackage > package really uses the 4-clause BSD license. In every case that it has > been used it was just a confusion. > > We therefore propose to deprecate BSD4 as a valid license in .cabal > files: > http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/hackage/ticket/205 > > In the unlikely case that anyone really wants to use the 4-clause BSD > license they can still specify "license: OtherLicense" and put the text > in the accompanying LICENSE file. > > > Additionally, I propose to add the MIT license since there are a couple > packages that really use that and allow optional versions on the > licenses that are versioned, which includes the GPL and LGPL. > > Looking at OtherLicense we find common ones are MIT, variations on BSD3 > (2 clause and fewer, other informal variations), disjunctions of BSD3 / > GPL (ie dual licensing), conjunctions of BSD3 / GPL (ie some bits user > BSD some under GPL).
Hi Duncan, thanks for pointing that out. I've fixed the 6 out of those 10 that are mine. I must have gotten that wrong some time long ago and then just copied the .cabal file to new projects. Consider this a vote for deprecating BSD4. /Bjorn _______________________________________________ cabal-devel mailing list [email protected] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/cabal-devel
