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 OtherLicense to
reach that effect.
On the other hand, you will stop people interested in open source to
look further into your project if they see OtherLicense instead of a
well-known open-source license.
2013/7/30 David Sorokin <david.soro...@gmail.com>:
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
appropriate. Probably, I will need two files LICENSE and LICENSE-GPLv3. In
the former I will have add my copyright and write in a simple form that the
license is dual and everyone is free to use the library under GPLv3 (which
is the main use case) according the terms provided in the corresponded
second file.
Thanks,
David
On 30.07.2013 13:57, Vo Minh Thu wrote:
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 not want to
list all the commercial licenses you have used/will use with different
clients (there are virtually infinite commercial licenses that you can
invent as needs arise: per seat, per core, per year, and so on
depending on the clients/projects).
I.e. you don't need to state upfront that commercial licences exist
(although I understand that you think it is better to advertise your
willingness to provide such commercial license, but a comment is
enough, the fact is that license is not provided through Hackage).
2013/7/30 Krzysztof Skrzętnicki <gte...@gmail.com>:
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 <david.soro...@gmail.com>
wrote:
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
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
