Specific license field

[Neil Mitchell]

Hi Alex,

Ok, I'm only on 1.6.0.1. Does 0.7 also support GPL-2+ ? Without a way
to specify the difference between there will still be a question mark.

Thanks, Neil

On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 4:43 AM, Alexander Dunlap
<alexander.dunlap at gmail.com> wrote:
> What version of Cabal are you using? With Cabal 1.7.3 and
> cabal-install 0.7, GPL-2 works.
>
> Alex
>
> On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 7:57 PM, Neil Mitchell <ndmitchell at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi Alex,
>>
>> License: GPL-2
>> Warning: 'license: GPL-2' is not a recognised license.
>>
>> License: GPL-2+
>> cabal: hlint.cabal:6: Parse of field 'license' failed.
>>
>> This doesn't seem particularly attractive, given License: GPL, on a
>> reasonable reading, probably means GPL v1.0 and above, or just GPL
>> v1.0 - unlikely to be what anyone intended.
>>
>> Thanks, Neil
>>
>> On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 1:18 AM, Alexander Dunlap
>> <alexander.dunlap at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 9:29 AM, Neil Mitchell <ndmitchell at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> I just got approached by Fedora maintainers with the query that HLint
>>>> doesn't specify it's license fully. The License field in the cabal
>>>> file says "GPL", and the LICENSE file has a copy of the GPL v2, but I
>>>> never say GPL version 2, or GPL version 2 and above etc. What is the
>>>> Cabal approved way to indicate your licensing constraints? I suspect
>>>> all other distro's packaging HLint have just guessed, or gone GPL 2
>>>> because that's clearly a subset of what I might have intended.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks, Neil
>>>>
>>>> PS. For anyone who stumbles across this email, the intention was to
>>>> license HLint under the GPL v2, but if that license doesn't suit
>>>> someone, email me.
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> cabal-devel mailing list
>>>> cabal-devel at haskell.org
>>>> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/cabal-devel
>>>>
>>>
>>> I think you just specify the license as GPL-2.
>>>
>>> Alex
>>>
>>
>