Hi, Cafe!
Probably, it was asked before but I could not find an answer with help of
Google.
I have a library which is hosted on Hackage. The library is licensed under
BSD3. It is a very specialized library for a small target group. Now I'm going
to relicense it and release a new version
2013/7/30 David Sorokin david.soro...@gmail.com:
Hi, Cafe!
Probably, it was asked before but I could not find an answer with help of
Google.
I have a library which is hosted on Hackage. The library is licensed under
BSD3. It is a very specialized library for a small target group. Now I'm
Thanks Thu,
I agree with you. Just I don't know what to write in the license field of the
.cabal file: GPL or OtherLicense. The both choices seem correct to me and
misleading at the same time.
Cheers,
David
30.07.2013, в 12:53, Vo Minh Thu написал(а):
2013/7/30 David Sorokin
Well, if you are willing to grant me a GPL license when I download
your package through Hackage, GPL is accurate.
Again you are not providing me with another license. Obtaining a
commercial license should be seeked through other means, perhaps by
sending you an email. I don't think Hackage should
Perhaps it would be best if .cabal allowed to have more than one license
listed.
Another solution would be to use custom field, for example:
License: GPL
x-Other-License: Commercial, see License-Commercial.txt
All best,
Krzysztof Skrzętnicki
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 11:44 AM, David Sorokin
Unless you want to provide multiple open source licenses, I don't see the point:
Anybody that needs a commercial license (and has some money) will
simply ask for such a commercial license when seeing that the code is
available under GPL.
Another reason it is pointless is that you will certainly
I am inclined to use value OtherLicense but state in the description
that the package is available either under GPL or a commercial license.
The latter must be requested to me. Then there would be no required
additional steps to use the package under GPL. Only the LICENSE file
must be
Cafe haskell-cafe@haskell.org
Wysłane: wtorek, 30 lipiec 2013 11:46:00
Temat: Re: [Haskell-cafe] Dual-licensing the package on Hackage
I am inclined to use value OtherLicense but state in the description
that the package is available either under GPL or a commercial license.
The latter must
Again I haven't seen a reason to do what you propose: virtually every
single GPL library author would gladly accept money for their work to
be used in a closed source setting, no need to use OtherLicense to
reach that effect.
On the other hand, you will stop people interested in open source to
This is already another question what license to use :)
On 30.07.2013 14:56, Vo Minh Thu wrote:
Again I haven't seen a reason to do what you propose: virtually every
single GPL library author would gladly accept money for their work to
be used in a closed source setting, no need to use
:46:00
Temat: Re: [Haskell-cafe] Dual-licensing the package on Hackage
I am inclined to use value OtherLicense but state in the description
that the package is available either under GPL or a commercial license.
The latter must be requested to me. Then there would be no required
additional
Sorry but I was not discussing which license to use. It seems I cannot
get my point across...
2013/7/30 David Sorokin david.soro...@gmail.com:
This is already another question what license to use :)
On 30.07.2013 14:56, Vo Minh Thu wrote:
Again I haven't seen a reason to do what you
Thu not...@gmail.com
DW: Haskell Cafe haskell-cafe@haskell.org
Wysłane: wtorek, 30 lipiec 2013 11:46:00
Temat: Re: [Haskell-cafe] Dual-licensing the package on Hackage
I am inclined to use value OtherLicense but state in the description
that the package is available either under GPL
One question is how much of a discovery/indexing role Hackage plays. There
can be a tremendous difference in ease of obtaining a commercial license,
and a restriction for things I can use in a proprietary project, once I
pay enough seems like a legitimate use case.
It also has some bearing on
14 matches
Mail list logo
