On Mon, 2011-02-07 at 14:42 +0000, Malcolm Wallace wrote: > > It seems then that a package should be the least restrictive > > combination of all the licenses in all the contained modules. > > Omit the words "least restrictive" and I think you are correct. > > To combine licences, just aggregate them. There is no lattice of > subsumption; no "more" or "less" restrictive ordering. It's simple: > you must obey all of them. Some aggregations introduce a > contradiction of terms, so you cannot legally aggregate those modules > without breaking some term. But if the terms of the aggregated > licences are compatible rather than contradictory, then all is good.
Right, so the effect of per-file/mixed licenses could be achieved by letting packages specify a list of licenses: license: Foo, Bar Meaning you may copy/distribute provided you comply with all these licenses. Note that this does not cover dual licensing, e.g. Foo or Bar at distributor's choice. Duncan _______________________________________________ cabal-devel mailing list cabal-devel@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/cabal-devel
