[Haskell-cafe] how can we fix our license?

[Ben Franksen]

Am 27.04.20 um 12:04 schrieb Daniel Gröber:
> I'd really like to get to the root of the problem here because the way
> Cabal format evolution works we really want people being able to use newer
> versions with older GHCs.

If I specify "cabal-version: 2.2" I get:

>cabal build --enable-tests --disable-optimization
--with-compiler=/opt/ghc/8.0.2/bin/ghc
Resolving dependencies...
Build profile: -w ghc-8.0.2 -O0
In order, the following will be built (use -v for more details):
 - darcs-2.14.3 (lib:darcs, exe:darcs, test:darcs-test) (first run)
Warning: darcs.cabal: Unknown fields: autogen-modules (line 363)
Fields allowed in this section:
exposed-modules, reexported-modules, required-signatures,
exposed-signatures, exposed, buildable, build-tools, build-depends,
cpp-options, cc-options, ld-options, pkgconfig-depends, frameworks,
extra-framework-dirs, c-sources, js-sources, default-language,
other-languages, default-extensions, other-extensions, extensions,
extra-libraries, extra-ghci-libraries, extra-lib-dirs, includes,
install-includes, include-dirs, hs-source-dirs, other-modules,
ghc-prof-options, ghcjs-prof-options, ghc-shared-options,
ghcjs-shared-options, ghc-options, ghcjs-options, jhc-options,
hugs-options, nhc98-options
Configuring darcs-2.14.3...
setup: This package description follows version 2.2 of the Cabal
specification. This tool only supports up to version 1.24.2.0.

The warning is okay, I get that in any case, but the last line is an
error. The problem here seems to be that we have a custom Setup.hs.

BTW, the "cabal-version:" has been added precisely to allow forward
compatibility, so that a newer cabal version can still handle the old
syntax. See

https://www.haskell.org/cabal/users-guide/developing-packages.html#pkg-field-cabal-version

>> It seems hackage allows me to change the package description in a
>> revision. So I could make a revision that adds a line or two to the
>> package description to point out the difference between the license
>> displayed by hackage and the one intended.
> 
> Honestly if you have appropriate GPL headers in your source files anyone
> who cares about the distinction between v2-only and v2-or-later will be
> able to tell what's going on. A comment sure couldn't hurt though.

Agreed, so I guess this is what I'll do then.

Cheers
Ben