[patch] lincenses warning

[Carter Schonwald]

sure, my point is that there no universe where we wont HAVE to have an
"otherlicense" option (ie, we MUST always have that escape hatch)

likewise, i dont understand the dual license point. Could you explain a bit
more?

At the end of the day, auditing the licensing/intellectual property status
of ones codebase/dependencies is subtle enough that i'm going to stay
skeptical of any process that doesn't require human thought at the end of
the line. For no other reason than its an insanely complicated topic.

the law is about corner cases, "99%" is not a very good coverage. :)

that said, i'm happy that someone is spending time thinking about this
stuff,  i'm just gonna try to push back on some anything which i think over
reaches or veers into positing a legal opinion :)
cheers!
-Carter
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/cabal-devel/attachments/20150308/f70e070d/attachment.html>