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 > going to relicense it and release a new version already under the > dual-license: GPLv3 and commercial. In most cases GPL will be sufficient as > this is not a library in common sense. > > Can I specify the GPL license in the .cabal file, or should I write > OtherLicense? > > I'm going to add the information about dual-licensing in the description > section of the .cabal file, though.
Although you can indeed license your software under different licences, in the case of your question it doesn't seem to be a concern with Hackage: The license displayed on Hackage is the one for the corresponding .cabal file (or at least I think it is). So you issue your new version with the changed license, the new version is available with the new license, the old versions are still available with the old license. Everything is fine. Now about the dual licensing. It seems it is again not a problem with Hackage: you are not granting through Hackage such a commercial license. I guess you provide it upon request (for some money). I.e. when I download your library from Hackage, I receive it under the terms of the BSD (or GPL) license you have chosen, not under a commercial license that I would have to receive through other means. Otherwise the semantic of the license field on Hackage would mean the library is available under such and such licenses, which are not granted to you when you download the library on Hackage. Only when you download the package you can actually find the licensing terms (e.g. in the LICENSE file). But this seems unlikely to me. Cheers, Thu _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
