Chris Smith schrieb:
> It feels to me like a quite reasonable simplification that if someone
> wants to offer different bits of code, with the intent that the license
> terms of the eventual executable may be different depending on which
> bits you use, then they ought to do so in different package
On 2/7/11 9:42 AM, Malcolm Wallace wrote:
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.
In the event that my comments on the previous thread were a source of
confusion, I agree wit
On Thu, 2011-02-10 at 19:00 +1300, Vivian McPhail 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 a
On Wed, 2011-02-09 at 03:47 +1300, Vivian McPhail wrote:
> > license: Foo, Bar
> >
>
> Could this be computed automatically from the source files by Cabal?
I would not want to rely on that.
> Looking specifically at hmatrix, there are three kinds of modules
>
>i) bindings to GSL
> > 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 "l
It feels to me like a quite reasonable simplification that if someone
wants to offer different bits of code, with the intent that the license
terms of the eventual executable may be different depending on which
bits you use, then they ought to do so in different packages. It's
simple enough to do,
Vivian McPhail writes:
> Looking specifically at hmatrix, there are three kinds of modules
>
>i) bindings to GSLGPL
>ii) bindings to LAPACK BSD
>iii) pure Haskellhmatrix author's choice
>
> 1) Am I correct in thinking that even the bindings modules (the
> On Mon, 2011-02-07 at 14:42 +, 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.
>
OK.
> >
> > To combine lice
On Mon, 2011-02-07 at 14:42 +, 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 aggregat
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" restri
Dear All,
There was recently a discussion on haskell-cafe (
http://www.mail-archive.com/haskell-cafe@haskell.org/msg86472.html) about
licenses of libraries such as hmatrix and the combination of various
different licences.
One question was about per-package versus by-file licenses:
In Haskell th
11 matches
Mail list logo
