every use of BSD4 on hackage is incorrect
bjorn at bringert.net
Sat Mar 1 17:05:10 EST 2008
On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 11:11 PM, Duncan Coutts
<duncan.coutts at worc.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
> The following hackage packages specify in their .cabal file:
> license: BSD4
> Which is the 4-clause BSD license, ie the one with the advertising
> Inspecting the LICENSE files for every one of these packages reveals
> that they actually use the 3-clause BSD license. Not a single hackage
> package really uses the 4-clause BSD license. In every case that it has
> been used it was just a confusion.
> We therefore propose to deprecate BSD4 as a valid license in .cabal
> In the unlikely case that anyone really wants to use the 4-clause BSD
> license they can still specify "license: OtherLicense" and put the text
> in the accompanying LICENSE file.
> Additionally, I propose to add the MIT license since there are a couple
> packages that really use that and allow optional versions on the
> licenses that are versioned, which includes the GPL and LGPL.
> Looking at OtherLicense we find common ones are MIT, variations on BSD3
> (2 clause and fewer, other informal variations), disjunctions of BSD3 /
> GPL (ie dual licensing), conjunctions of BSD3 / GPL (ie some bits user
> BSD some under GPL).
thanks for pointing that out. I've fixed the 6 out of those 10 that
are mine. I must have gotten that wrong some time long ago and then
just copied the .cabal file to new projects. Consider this a vote for
More information about the Libraries