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. _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe