license cabal field for language bindings?
duncan.coutts at googlemail.com
Tue Dec 18 01:09:58 CET 2012
On Sun, 2012-12-16 at 20:14 +0100, Herbert Valerio Riedel wrote:
> Hello Cabal Devs,
> Since the recurring topic of software licenses is being discussed on
> haskell-cafe again, I was wondering what the .cabal license-field should
> be for packages linking _directly_ to C-libraries, such as Haskell
> language bindings to C-libraries.
> To be more specific: As a side-effect of the ongoing discussion, Michael
> Snoyman implemented a web-based tool for computing the transitive
> license multiset which made me wonder whether the .cabal license
> field should describe only the license of the source code proper
> distributed with the package or whether it should also take into account
> the licenses of the wrapped/linked libraries?
It should be the license of that package's source code only. The full
bag of licenses can indeed be calculated.
So bindings are not special (unless they actually ship the C source code
as part of the package).
Calculating the licenses when C libs are involved as dependencies is
more tricky because the license info isn't quite so easily available in
a machine readable form. You'd probably want to combine info from say
the debian package db, find out which debian packages provide which C
libs, and we know which C libs are needed by each cabal package. Join
those two together and look up the license of the debian packages
providing the C libs.
> PS: A separate but related issue was raised in the haskell-cafe
> discussion: Many packages depend on the cpphs library as a hack,
> although they only need the cpphs executable (and therefore don't
> link against the cpphs package). This also skews the result that
> tools like  report, as the cpphs library is LGPLed which doesn't
> matter if only the cpphs executable was actually used for building
> the package.
That'd be solved if we did dependencies on programs properly.
More information about the cabal-devel