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 < [email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > > > On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 3:53 PM, Vincent Hanquez <[email protected]> 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 > > [email protected] > > http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe > > > > > > -- > Felipe. >
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list [email protected] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
