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 be used for making adverts, but I think it would be ok to state in the description of the package something along the lines of "commercial licenses are available through example.com". 2013/7/30 David Sorokin <david.soro...@gmail.com>: > 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 <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