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 packages.
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 GSLGPL
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 aggregate them.
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 with
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
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 aggregate them.
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 licences, just
Vivian McPhail haskell.vivian.mcph...@gmail.com 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
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
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
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
11 matches
Mail list logo
