On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 10:46 AM, Colin Paul Adams<co...@colina.demon.co.uk> wrote: >>>>>> "Tom" == Tom Tobin <korp...@korpios.com> writes: > > >> This can surely be tackled by cabal, as it already has the > >> license information. > > Tom> I don't see this as a real solution; why would a package be > > It should be done anyway, irrespective of the platform.
Yes, that would be handy option for cabal-install in general. > Tom> added to the platform in the first place if a large > Tom> proportion of developers couldn't make use of it? > > Anyone can make use of it. You may choose not to (or your boss may > choose for you), but that doesn't mean you can't. The benefit of a standard library is that you can say "I need a library to handle X" and if a library addressing X is in the standard library, you're set. If you then need to worry about the GPL — and this is a reality that can't be written off as a mere "choice" — why bother with the platform in the first place? Non-GPL developers would be better off sticking with hackage in that case. _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
