One question is how much of a discovery/indexing role Hackage plays. There can be a tremendous difference in ease of obtaining a commercial license, and a restriction for "things I can use in a proprietary project, once I pay enough" seems like a legitimate use case.
It also has some bearing on ease of contributing changes upstream - a project that is dual licensed will probably want well-documented transfer of ownership; a gpl only project may not. That said, I am less sure that Hackage needs to be the place to call that out. On Jul 30, 2013 2:51 AM, "Vo Minh Thu" <not...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 >
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe