[Haskell-cafe] Dual-licensing the package on Hackage
Vo Minh Thu
noteed at gmail.com
Tue Jul 30 11:49:14 CEST 2013
Well, if you are willing to grant me a GPL license when I download
your package through Hackage, GPL is accurate.
Again you are not providing me with another license. Obtaining a
commercial license should be seeked through other means, perhaps by
sending you an email. I don't think Hackage should be used for making
adverts, but I think it would be ok to state in the description of the
package something along the lines of "commercial licenses are
available through example.com".
2013/7/30 David Sorokin <david.sorokin at gmail.com>:
> Thanks Thu,
> I agree with you. Just I don't know what to write in the license field of the .cabal file: GPL or OtherLicense. The both choices seem correct to me and misleading at the same time.
> 30.07.2013, в 12:53, Vo Minh Thu написал(а):
>> 2013/7/30 David Sorokin <david.sorokin at gmail.com>:
>>> Hi, Cafe!
>>> Probably, it was asked before but I could not find an answer with help of Google.
>>> I have a library which is hosted on Hackage. The library is licensed under BSD3. It is a very specialized library for a small target group. Now I'm going to relicense it and release a new version already under the dual-license: GPLv3 and commercial. In most cases GPL will be sufficient as this is not a library in common sense.
>>> Can I specify the GPL license in the .cabal file, or should I write OtherLicense?
>>> I'm going to add the information about dual-licensing in the description section of the .cabal file, though.
>> Although you can indeed license your software under different
>> licences, in the case of your question it doesn't seem to be a concern
>> with Hackage:
>> The license displayed on Hackage is the one for the corresponding
>> .cabal file (or at least I think it is). So you issue your new version
>> with the changed license, the new version is available with the new
>> license, the old versions are still available with the old license.
>> Everything is fine.
>> Now about the dual licensing. It seems it is again not a problem with
>> Hackage: you are not granting through Hackage such a commercial
>> license. I guess you provide it upon request (for some money). I.e.
>> when I download your library from Hackage, I receive it under the
>> terms of the BSD (or GPL) license you have chosen, not under a
>> commercial license that I would have to receive through other means.
>> Otherwise the semantic of the license field on Hackage would mean the
>> library is available under such and such licenses, which are not
>> granted to you when you download the library on Hackage. Only when you
>> download the package you can actually find the licensing terms (e.g.
>> in the LICENSE file). But this seems unlikely to me.
More information about the Haskell-Cafe