[Haskell-cafe] Dual-licensing the package on Hackage

[Vo Minh Thu]

Sorry but I was not discussing which license to use. It seems I cannot
get my point across...

2013/7/30 David Sorokin <david.sorokin at gmail.com>:
> This is already another question what license to use :)
>
>
> On 30.07.2013 14:56, Vo Minh Thu wrote:
>>
>> Again I haven't seen a reason to do what you propose: virtually every
>> single GPL library author would gladly accept money for their work to
>> be used in a closed source setting, no need to use OtherLicense to
>> reach that effect.
>>
>> On the other hand, you will stop people interested in open source to
>> look further into your project if they see OtherLicense instead of a
>> well-known open-source license.
>>
>> 2013/7/30 David Sorokin <david.sorokin at gmail.com>:
>>>
>>> I am inclined to use value OtherLicense but state in the description that
>>> the package is available either under GPL or a commercial license. The
>>> latter must be requested to me. Then there would be no required
>>> additional
>>> steps to use the package under GPL. Only the LICENSE file must be
>>> appropriate. Probably, I will need two files LICENSE and LICENSE-GPLv3.
>>> In
>>> the former I will have add my copyright and write in a simple form that
>>> the
>>> license is dual and everyone is free to use the library under GPLv3
>>> (which
>>> is the main use case) according the terms provided in the corresponded
>>> second file.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> David
>>>
>>>
>>> On 30.07.2013 13:57, Vo Minh Thu wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Unless you want to provide multiple open source licenses, I don't see
>>>> the
>>>> point:
>>>>
>>>> Anybody that needs a commercial license (and has some money) will
>>>> simply ask for such a commercial license when seeing that the code is
>>>> available under GPL.
>>>>
>>>> Another reason it is pointless is that you will certainly not want to
>>>> list all the commercial licenses you have used/will use with different
>>>> clients (there are virtually infinite commercial licenses that you can
>>>> invent as needs arise: per seat, per core, per year, and so on
>>>> depending on the clients/projects).
>>>>
>>>> I.e. you don't need to state upfront that commercial licences exist
>>>> (although I understand that you think it is better to advertise your
>>>> willingness to provide such commercial license, but a comment is
>>>> enough, the fact is that license is not provided through Hackage).
>>>>
>>>> 2013/7/30 Krzysztof Skrzętnicki <gtener at gmail.com>:
>>>>>
>>>>> Perhaps it would be best if .cabal allowed to have more than one
>>>>> license
>>>>> listed.
>>>>>
>>>>> Another solution would be to use custom field, for example:
>>>>>
>>>>> License: GPL
>>>>> x-Other-License: Commercial, see License-Commercial.txt
>>>>>
>>>>> All best,
>>>>> Krzysztof Skrzętnicki
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 11:44 AM, David Sorokin
>>>>> <david.sorokin at gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>> David
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>> Thu
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Haskell-Cafe mailing list
>>>>>> Haskell-Cafe at haskell.org
>>>>>> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
>>>>>
>>>>>
>