[patch] lincenses warning

[Gershom B]

Well on “other license” it should just warn that it _should be_ an open source license to be uploaded to hackage. That seems fine to me — its an informational message.

Also note that we don’t accept packages with no license, just as we don’t accept AllRights licenses. So yes, the “no license” fact is true, but irrelevant.

—g


On March 7, 2015 at 12:50:39 AM, Carter Schonwald (carter.schonwald at gmail.com) wrote:
> i'm very uncomfortable with the "warn on other-license" change. I think
> theres lots of valid reasons that someone may be using an amended license
> (eg BSD / MIT plus an explicit patent license grant) that strictly more
> open/free than any standard OSS license on the planet.
>  
> Edward Kmett raise the valid point on IRC that by current international
> treaties, authors no longer need to mark their works "All rights reserved"
> to protect their copy right, but rather that if no other license is
> specified, ANY work is by definition all rights reserved!
>  
> anyways, thats my 2cents for the evening
>  
> cheers-Carter
>  
> On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 1:56 PM, Gershom B wrote:
>  
> > Thanks for this patch!
> >
> > I've kicked off a discussion with hackage administrators and the haskell
> > committee about the general approach we want to take to the license
> > situation on hackage, and how to properly document our policies. It seems
> > to me that merging this makes sense regardless, but I don't know what
> > others may think?
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Gershom
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 9:58 AM, Francesco Ariis wrote:
> >
> >> Dear Cabal developers,
> >> spurred by this discussion on haskell-cafe [1], I attach a small patch
> >> on licence warnings. It:
> >>
> >> - reverts AllRightsReserved as PackageDistInexcusable, as it was
> >> before this commit [2].
> >> Reading the comments in Check.hs, this datatype is for issues which
> >> "[are] OK in the author's environment but [are] almost certain to be
> >> a portability problems for other environments", which I think it is
> >> the case.
> >>
> >> - adds a PackageDistSuspicious warning on OtherLicense. The text of
> >> the warning encourages the developer to choose from licences
> >> suggested by the OSI or FSF, if they don't want to use a licence
> >> recognised by cabal.
> >>
> >> Thanks
> >> -Francesco
> >>
> >>
> >> [1]
> >> http://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell-cafe/2015-February/118411.html  
> >> [2]
> >> https://github.com/haskell/cabal/commit/8d449ba3231445726272eac4dcf7b2b4a5508db9  
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> cabal-devel mailing list
> >> cabal-devel at haskell.org
> >> http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cabal-devel
> >>
> >>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > cabal-devel mailing list
> > cabal-devel at haskell.org
> > http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cabal-devel
> >
> >
>