Sorry but I was not discussing which license to use. It seems I cannot get my point across...
2013/7/30 David Sorokin <david.soro...@gmail.com>: > 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
