I'm not quite certain what to make of: 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).
It seems like that's saying "if you really want to, use the BSD license instead." But I'm not sure what the legal meaning of "If you have a commercial use" is. Malcolm: could you clarify what the meaning is? On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 6:37 PM, Felipe Almeida Lessa < felipe.le...@gmail.com> wrote: > From [1] I gather that its license really is LGPL/GPL. However, when > used as a preprocessor its license doesn't really matter. Many > packages on that list have a LGPL "taint" because one of its deps use > cpphs. So the whitelist of cpphs would be stating that nobody is > using cpphs as a library (which may be false, but is mostly true ;). > > [1] http://code.haskell.org/cpphs/README > > On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 1:08 PM, Michael Snoyman <mich...@snoyman.com> > wrote: > > Are you referring to: > > > > http://code.haskell.org/cpphs/LICENCE-commercial > > > > If the package is dual-licensed BSD3 and LGPL, maybe Malcolm could change > > the cabal file to mention the BSD3 so that its package description is > less > > intimidating? > > > > > > On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 4:12 PM, Felipe Almeida Lessa > > <felipe.le...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> While you're at it, maybe whitelisting cpphs would be nice as well =). > >> > >> On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 12:03 PM, Michael Snoyman <mich...@snoyman.com> > >> wrote: > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 3:53 PM, Vincent Hanquez <t...@snarc.org> > wrote: > >> >> > >> >> On 12/13/2012 12:51 PM, Michael Snoyman wrote: > >> >>> > >> >>> I think that's a great idea. I just implemented this on PackDeps: > >> >>> > >> >>> http://packdeps.haskellers.com/licenses > >> >>> > >> >>> As with all features on that site, I'll be happy to deprecate it as > >> >>> soon > >> >>> as Hackage incorporates the feature in the future. > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> awesome Michael ! > >> >> > >> >> However i think ithis shouldn't take dependencies from tests and > >> >> benchmarks. > >> >> This doesn't make differences for the "overall" license that the > >> >> library > >> >> "exposes". > >> >> > >> >> -- > >> >> Vincent > >> > > >> > > >> > Hmm, that's a good point. I'll admit I hadn't really thought this > >> > through, > >> > but I can actually see an argument going both ways on this: > >> > > >> > * Viral licenses won't actually affect you if they're just used for > test > >> > suites. > >> > * But company lawyers will probably be nervous about it anyway. > >> > > >> > Nonetheless, I think you have the right of it. Unless people say > >> > otherwise, > >> > I'm going to implement Vincent's change. > >> > > >> > Michael > >> > > >> > _______________________________________________ > >> > Haskell-Cafe mailing list > >> > Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org > >> > http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe > >> > > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Felipe. > > > > > > > > -- > Felipe. >
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe