Petr P | 13 Dec 11:41 2012
Picon

Hackage suggestion: Gather the list of the licenses of all dependencies of a package

  Dear Haskellers,


following up the recent discussion about copyleft licenses, I'd suggest a (hopefully minor) improvement of Hackage: For each package, gather the list of the licenses of everything it depends on. I think this would help considerably people who don't want or can't use software licensed under a particular license (most often (L)GPL). In particular, we can have a BSD package that depends on a LGPL package, and this is fine for FOSS developers. But for a commercial developer, this can be a serious issue that is not apparent until one examines *every* transitive dependency.

This idea is a bit vague, because a dependency is actually a range of packages, which in theory could have different licenses. But I suppose this will rarely happen in practice, so it'd be safe just to take the last package in the range (or maybe take all licences of the packages in the range).

  Best regards,
  Petr
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe <at> haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Henk-Jan van Tuyl | 13 Dec 13:49 2012
Picon

Re: Hackage suggestion: Gather the list of the licenses of all dependencies of a package

On Thu, 13 Dec 2012 11:41:14 +0100, Petr P <petr.mvd <at> gmail.com> wrote:

> For each package, gather the list
> of the licenses of everything it depends on. I think this would help
> considerably people who don't want or can't use software licensed under a
> particular license (most often (L)GPL). In particular, we can have a BSD
> package that depends on a LGPL package, and this is fine for FOSS
> developers. But for a commercial developer, this can be a serious issue
> that is not apparent until one examines *every* transitive dependency.
>
> This idea is a bit vague, because a dependency is actually a range of
> packages, which in theory could have different licenses. But I suppose  
> this
> will rarely happen in practice, so it'd be safe just to take the last
> package in the range (or maybe take all licences of the packages in the
> range).

cab[0] can do that, for installed packages:
   cab deps -i -r -a vector
will generate a list of licenses for the packages that vector depends  
upon, like this:

base 4.3.1.0 BSD3 ""
     ghc-prim 0.2.0.0 BSD3 ""
         rts 1.0 BSD3 ""
             ffi 1.0 BSD3 ""
     integer-gmp 0.2.0.3 BSD3 ""
         ghc-prim 0.2.0.0 BSD3 ""
             rts 1.0 BSD3 ""
                 ffi 1.0 BSD3 ""
     rts 1.0 BSD3 ""
         ffi 1.0 BSD3 ""
primitive 0.4.0.1 BSD3 "Roman Leshchinskiy <rl <at> cse.unsw.edu.au>"
     base 4.3.1.0 BSD3 ""
         ghc-prim 0.2.0.0 BSD3 ""
             rts 1.0 BSD3 ""
                 ffi 1.0 BSD3 ""
         integer-gmp 0.2.0.3 BSD3 ""
             ghc-prim 0.2.0.0 BSD3 ""
                 rts 1.0 BSD3 ""
                     ffi 1.0 BSD3 ""
         rts 1.0 BSD3 ""
             ffi 1.0 BSD3 ""
     ghc-prim 0.2.0.0 BSD3 ""
         rts 1.0 BSD3 ""
             ffi 1.0 BSD3 ""

Regards,
Henk-Jan van Tuyl

[0] http://hackage.haskell.org/package/cab

--

-- 
http://Van.Tuyl.eu/
http://members.chello.nl/hjgtuyl/tourdemonad.html
Haskell programming
--
Michael Snoyman | 13 Dec 13:51 2012

Re: Hackage suggestion: Gather the list of the licenses of all dependencies of a package

I think that's a great idea. I just implemented this on PackDeps:


As with all features on that site, I'll be happy to deprecate it as soon as Hackage incorporates the feature in the future.

Michael


On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 12:41 PM, Petr P <petr.mvd <at> gmail.com> wrote:
  Dear Haskellers,

following up the recent discussion about copyleft licenses, I'd suggest a (hopefully minor) improvement of Hackage: For each package, gather the list of the licenses of everything it depends on. I think this would help considerably people who don't want or can't use software licensed under a particular license (most often (L)GPL). In particular, we can have a BSD package that depends on a LGPL package, and this is fine for FOSS developers. But for a commercial developer, this can be a serious issue that is not apparent until one examines *every* transitive dependency.

This idea is a bit vague, because a dependency is actually a range of packages, which in theory could have different licenses. But I suppose this will rarely happen in practice, so it'd be safe just to take the last package in the range (or maybe take all licences of the packages in the range).

  Best regards,
  Petr

_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe <at> haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe


_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe <at> haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Vincent Hanquez | 13 Dec 14:53 2012

Re: Hackage suggestion: Gather the list of the licenses of all dependencies of a package

On 12/13/2012 12:51 PM, Michael Snoyman wrote:
> I think that's a great idea. I just implemented this on PackDeps:
>
> http://packdeps.haskellers.com/licenses
>
> As with all features on that site, I'll be happy to deprecate it as 
> soon as Hackage incorporates the feature in the future.

awesome Michael !

However i think ithis shouldn't take dependencies from tests and benchmarks.
This doesn't make differences for the "overall" license that the library 
"exposes".

--

-- 
Vincent
Michael Snoyman | 13 Dec 15:03 2012

Re: Hackage suggestion: Gather the list of the licenses of all dependencies of a package




On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 3:53 PM, Vincent Hanquez <tab <at> snarc.org> wrote:
On 12/13/2012 12:51 PM, Michael Snoyman wrote:
I think that's a great idea. I just implemented this on PackDeps:

http://packdeps.haskellers.com/licenses

As with all features on that site, I'll be happy to deprecate it as soon as Hackage incorporates the feature in the future.

awesome Michael !

However i think ithis shouldn't take dependencies from tests and benchmarks.
This doesn't make differences for the "overall" license that the library "exposes".

--
Vincent

Hmm, that's a good point. I'll admit I hadn't really thought this through, but I can actually see an argument going both ways on this:

* Viral licenses won't actually affect you if they're just used for test suites.
* But company lawyers will probably be nervous about it anyway.

Nonetheless, I think you have the right of it. Unless people say otherwise, I'm going to implement Vincent's change.

Michael
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe <at> haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Felipe Almeida Lessa | 13 Dec 15:12 2012
Picon

Re: Hackage suggestion: Gather the list of the licenses of all dependencies of a package

While you're at it, maybe whitelisting cpphs would be nice as well =).

On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 12:03 PM, Michael Snoyman <michael <at> snoyman.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 3:53 PM, Vincent Hanquez <tab <at> snarc.org> wrote:
>>
>> On 12/13/2012 12:51 PM, Michael Snoyman wrote:
>>>
>>> I think that's a great idea. I just implemented this on PackDeps:
>>>
>>> http://packdeps.haskellers.com/licenses
>>>
>>> As with all features on that site, I'll be happy to deprecate it as soon
>>> as Hackage incorporates the feature in the future.
>>
>>
>> awesome Michael !
>>
>> However i think ithis shouldn't take dependencies from tests and
>> benchmarks.
>> This doesn't make differences for the "overall" license that the library
>> "exposes".
>>
>> --
>> Vincent
>
>
> Hmm, that's a good point. I'll admit I hadn't really thought this through,
> but I can actually see an argument going both ways on this:
>
> * Viral licenses won't actually affect you if they're just used for test
> suites.
> * But company lawyers will probably be nervous about it anyway.
>
> Nonetheless, I think you have the right of it. Unless people say otherwise,
> I'm going to implement Vincent's change.
>
> Michael
>
> _______________________________________________
> Haskell-Cafe mailing list
> Haskell-Cafe <at> haskell.org
> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
>

--

-- 
Felipe.
Michael Snoyman | 13 Dec 16:08 2012

Re: Hackage suggestion: Gather the list of the licenses of all dependencies of a package

Are you referring to:


If the package is dual-licensed BSD3 and LGPL, maybe Malcolm could change the cabal file to mention the BSD3 so that its package description is less intimidating?


On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 4:12 PM, Felipe Almeida Lessa <felipe.lessa <at> gmail.com> wrote:
While you're at it, maybe whitelisting cpphs would be nice as well =).

On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 12:03 PM, Michael Snoyman <michael <at> snoyman.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 3:53 PM, Vincent Hanquez <tab <at> snarc.org> wrote:
>>
>> On 12/13/2012 12:51 PM, Michael Snoyman wrote:
>>>
>>> I think that's a great idea. I just implemented this on PackDeps:
>>>
>>> http://packdeps.haskellers.com/licenses
>>>
>>> As with all features on that site, I'll be happy to deprecate it as soon
>>> as Hackage incorporates the feature in the future.
>>
>>
>> awesome Michael !
>>
>> However i think ithis shouldn't take dependencies from tests and
>> benchmarks.
>> This doesn't make differences for the "overall" license that the library
>> "exposes".
>>
>> --
>> Vincent
>
>
> Hmm, that's a good point. I'll admit I hadn't really thought this through,
> but I can actually see an argument going both ways on this:
>
> * Viral licenses won't actually affect you if they're just used for test
> suites.
> * But company lawyers will probably be nervous about it anyway.
>
> Nonetheless, I think you have the right of it. Unless people say otherwise,
> I'm going to implement Vincent's change.
>
> Michael
>
> _______________________________________________
> Haskell-Cafe mailing list
> Haskell-Cafe <at> haskell.org
> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
>



--
Felipe.

_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe <at> haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Felipe Almeida Lessa | 13 Dec 17:37 2012
Picon

Re: Hackage suggestion: Gather the list of the licenses of all dependencies of a package

From [1] I gather that its license really is LGPL/GPL.  However, when
used as a preprocessor its license doesn't really matter.  Many
packages on that list have a LGPL "taint" because one of its deps use
cpphs.  So the whitelist of cpphs would be stating that nobody is
using cpphs as a library (which may be false, but is mostly true ;).

[1] http://code.haskell.org/cpphs/README

On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 1:08 PM, Michael Snoyman <michael <at> snoyman.com> wrote:
> Are you referring to:
>
> http://code.haskell.org/cpphs/LICENCE-commercial
>
> If the package is dual-licensed BSD3 and LGPL, maybe Malcolm could change
> the cabal file to mention the BSD3 so that its package description is less
> intimidating?
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 4:12 PM, Felipe Almeida Lessa
> <felipe.lessa <at> gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> While you're at it, maybe whitelisting cpphs would be nice as well =).
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 12:03 PM, Michael Snoyman <michael <at> snoyman.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 3:53 PM, Vincent Hanquez <tab <at> snarc.org> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On 12/13/2012 12:51 PM, Michael Snoyman wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> I think that's a great idea. I just implemented this on PackDeps:
>> >>>
>> >>> http://packdeps.haskellers.com/licenses
>> >>>
>> >>> As with all features on that site, I'll be happy to deprecate it as
>> >>> soon
>> >>> as Hackage incorporates the feature in the future.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> awesome Michael !
>> >>
>> >> However i think ithis shouldn't take dependencies from tests and
>> >> benchmarks.
>> >> This doesn't make differences for the "overall" license that the
>> >> library
>> >> "exposes".
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Vincent
>> >
>> >
>> > Hmm, that's a good point. I'll admit I hadn't really thought this
>> > through,
>> > but I can actually see an argument going both ways on this:
>> >
>> > * Viral licenses won't actually affect you if they're just used for test
>> > suites.
>> > * But company lawyers will probably be nervous about it anyway.
>> >
>> > Nonetheless, I think you have the right of it. Unless people say
>> > otherwise,
>> > I'm going to implement Vincent's change.
>> >
>> > Michael
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Haskell-Cafe mailing list
>> > Haskell-Cafe <at> haskell.org
>> > http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Felipe.
>
>

--

-- 
Felipe.
Michael Snoyman | 13 Dec 19:40 2012

Re: Hackage suggestion: Gather the list of the licenses of all dependencies of a package

I'm not quite certain what to make of:

If you have a commercial use for cpphs, and feel the terms of the (L)GPL are too onerous, you have the option of distributing unmodified binaries (only, not sources) under the terms of a different licence (see LICENCE-commercial).It seems like that's saying "if you really want to, use the BSD license instead." But I'm not sure what the legal meaning of "If you have a commercial use" is. Malcolm: could you clarify what the meaning is?


On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 6:37 PM, Felipe Almeida Lessa <felipe.lessa <at> gmail.com> wrote:
From [1] I gather that its license really is LGPL/GPL.  However, when
used as a preprocessor its license doesn't really matter.  Many
packages on that list have a LGPL "taint" because one of its deps use
cpphs.  So the whitelist of cpphs would be stating that nobody is
using cpphs as a library (which may be false, but is mostly true ;).

[1] http://code.haskell.org/cpphs/README

On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 1:08 PM, Michael Snoyman <michael <at> snoyman.com> wrote:
> Are you referring to:
>
> http://code.haskell.org/cpphs/LICENCE-commercial
>
> If the package is dual-licensed BSD3 and LGPL, maybe Malcolm could change
> the cabal file to mention the BSD3 so that its package description is less
> intimidating?
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 4:12 PM, Felipe Almeida Lessa
> <felipe.lessa <at> gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> While you're at it, maybe whitelisting cpphs would be nice as well =).
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 12:03 PM, Michael Snoyman <michael <at> snoyman.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 3:53 PM, Vincent Hanquez <tab <at> snarc.org> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On 12/13/2012 12:51 PM, Michael Snoyman wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> I think that's a great idea. I just implemented this on PackDeps:
>> >>>
>> >>> http://packdeps.haskellers.com/licenses
>> >>>
>> >>> As with all features on that site, I'll be happy to deprecate it as
>> >>> soon
>> >>> as Hackage incorporates the feature in the future.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> awesome Michael !
>> >>
>> >> However i think ithis shouldn't take dependencies from tests and
>> >> benchmarks.
>> >> This doesn't make differences for the "overall" license that the
>> >> library
>> >> "exposes".
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Vincent
>> >
>> >
>> > Hmm, that's a good point. I'll admit I hadn't really thought this
>> > through,
>> > but I can actually see an argument going both ways on this:
>> >
>> > * Viral licenses won't actually affect you if they're just used for test
>> > suites.
>> > * But company lawyers will probably be nervous about it anyway.
>> >
>> > Nonetheless, I think you have the right of it. Unless people say
>> > otherwise,
>> > I'm going to implement Vincent's change.
>> >
>> > Michael
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Haskell-Cafe mailing list
>> > Haskell-Cafe <at> haskell.org
>> > http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Felipe.
>
>



--
Felipe.

_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe <at> haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Daniel Trstenjak | 13 Dec 20:51 2012
Picon

Re: Hackage suggestion: Gather the list of the licenses of all dependencies of a package


On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 08:40:09PM +0200, Michael Snoyman wrote:
> If you have a commercial use for cpphs, and feel the terms of the (L)GPL
> are too onerous, you have the option of distributing unmodified binaries
> (only, not sources) under the terms of a different licence (see
> LICENCE-commercial).

I think that depedencies to binaries, like cpphs, should be treated
differently than depedencies to libraries, because using a (L)GPL-ed
binary mostly hasn't any implications for a "commercial" user and
also for the output of a (L)GPL-ed binary usually the (L)GPL doesn't apply.
Michael Snoyman | 13 Dec 20:56 2012

Re: Hackage suggestion: Gather the list of the licenses of all dependencies of a package




On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 9:51 PM, Daniel Trstenjak <daniel.trstenjak <at> gmail.com> wrote:

On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 08:40:09PM +0200, Michael Snoyman wrote:
> If you have a commercial use for cpphs, and feel the terms of the (L)GPL
> are too onerous, you have the option of distributing unmodified binaries
> (only, not sources) under the terms of a different licence (see
> LICENCE-commercial).

I think that depedencies to binaries, like cpphs, should be treated
differently than depedencies to libraries, because using a (L)GPL-ed
binary mostly hasn't any implications for a "commercial" user and
also for the output of a (L)GPL-ed binary usually the (L)GPL doesn't apply.

_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe <at> haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe

In the case of cpphs, there's no way to determine that we're using it as a library or an executable, since it's just listed in the build-depends.

Michael
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe <at> haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Petr P | 15 Dec 08:13 2012
Picon

Re: Hackage suggestion: Gather the list of the licenses of all dependencies of a package

This is strange, I thought that cpphs should be specified in "build-tools:", not in "build-depends:".


Best regards,
Petr


2012/12/13 Michael Snoyman <michael <at> snoyman.com>



On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 9:51 PM, Daniel Trstenjak <daniel.trstenjak <at> gmail.com> wrote:

On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 08:40:09PM +0200, Michael Snoyman wrote:
> If you have a commercial use for cpphs, and feel the terms of the (L)GPL
> are too onerous, you have the option of distributing unmodified binaries
> (only, not sources) under the terms of a different licence (see
> LICENCE-commercial).

I think that depedencies to binaries, like cpphs, should be treated
differently than depedencies to libraries, because using a (L)GPL-ed
binary mostly hasn't any implications for a "commercial" user and
also for the output of a (L)GPL-ed binary usually the (L)GPL doesn't apply.

_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe <at> haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe

In the case of cpphs, there's no way to determine that we're using it as a library or an executable, since it's just listed in the build-depends.

Michael

_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe <at> haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe


_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe <at> haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Brent Yorgey | 15 Dec 14:41 2012

Re: Hackage suggestion: Gather the list of the licenses of all dependencies of a package

On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 08:13:44AM +0100, Petr P wrote:
> This is strange, I thought that cpphs should be specified in
> "build-tools:", not in "build-depends:".
> <
> http://www.haskell.org/cabal/users-guide/developing-packages.html#build-information
> >
> 
> Best regards,
> Petr

Presumably the reason to list it in build-depends instead of
build-tools is that in the latter case cabal will not automatically
install it as a dependency.  But you are right that this is a strange
situation, since if it is being used only as a preprocessor,
semantically it ought to be listed in build-tools.

-Brent

> 2012/12/13 Michael Snoyman <michael <at> snoyman.com>
> 
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 9:51 PM, Daniel Trstenjak <
> > daniel.trstenjak <at> gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 08:40:09PM +0200, Michael Snoyman wrote:
> >> > If you have a commercial use for cpphs, and feel the terms of the (L)GPL
> >> > are too onerous, you have the option of distributing unmodified binaries
> >> > (only, not sources) under the terms of a different licence (see
> >> > LICENCE-commercial).
> >>
> >> I think that depedencies to binaries, like cpphs, should be treated
> >> differently than depedencies to libraries, because using a (L)GPL-ed
> >> binary mostly hasn't any implications for a "commercial" user and
> >> also for the output of a (L)GPL-ed binary usually the (L)GPL doesn't
> >> apply.
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Haskell-Cafe mailing list
> >> Haskell-Cafe <at> haskell.org
> >> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
> >>
> >
> > In the case of cpphs, there's no way to determine that we're using it as a
> > library or an executable, since it's just listed in the build-depends.
> >
> > Michael
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Haskell-Cafe mailing list
> > Haskell-Cafe <at> haskell.org
> > http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
> >
> >

> _______________________________________________
> Haskell-Cafe mailing list
> Haskell-Cafe <at> haskell.org
> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Petr P | 15 Dec 15:01 2012
Picon

Re: Hackage suggestion: Gather the list of the licenses of all dependencies of a package

2012/12/15 Brent Yorgey <byorgey <at> seas.upenn.edu>
On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 08:13:44AM +0100, Petr P wrote:
> This is strange, I thought that cpphs should be specified in
> "build-tools:", not in "build-depends:".
> <
> http://www.haskell.org/cabal/users-guide/developing-packages.html#build-information
> >
>
> Best regards,
> Petr

Presumably the reason to list it in build-depends instead of
build-tools is that in the latter case cabal will not automatically
install it as a dependency.  But you are right that this is a strange
situation, since if it is being used only as a preprocessor,
semantically it ought to be listed in build-tools.


So if I put cpphs into build-tools and I don't have it installed, the build will fail? Is this a desired behavior, or a bug?

Best regards,
Petr
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe <at> haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Brandon Allbery | 15 Dec 16:14 2012
Picon

Re: Hackage suggestion: Gather the list of the licenses of all dependencies of a package

On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 9:01 AM, Petr P <petr.mvd <at> gmail.com> wrote:
So if I put cpphs into build-tools and I don't have it installed, the build will fail? Is this a desired behavior, or a bug?

Shortcoming of cabal; it only "knows about" libraries because it is really just a front-end for ghc-pkg, so can't really figure dependencies involving only executables and not libraries.  The same thing comes up with happy, alex, and gtk2hsc2hs.

--
brandon s allbery kf8nh                               sine nomine associates
allbery.b <at> gmail.com                                  ballbery <at> sinenomine.net
unix, openafs, kerberos, infrastructure, xmonad        http://sinenomine.net

_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe <at> haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Henk-Jan van Tuyl | 15 Dec 22:38 2012
Picon

Re: Hackage suggestion: Gather the list of the licenses of all dependencies of a package

On Sat, 15 Dec 2012 16:14:59 +0100, Brandon Allbery <allbery.b <at> gmail.com>  
wrote:

> On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 9:01 AM, Petr P <petr.mvd <at> gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> So if I put cpphs into build-tools and I don't have it installed, the
>> build will fail? Is this a desired behavior, or a bug?
>>
>
> Shortcoming of cabal; it only "knows about" libraries because it is  
> really
> just a front-end for ghc-pkg, so can't really figure dependencies  
> involving
> only executables and not libraries.  The same thing comes up with happy,
> alex, and gtk2hsc2hs.
>

A work-around for this would be to add a dummy library to program-only  
packages.

Regards,
Henk-Jan van Tuyl

--

-- 
http://Van.Tuyl.eu/
http://members.chello.nl/hjgtuyl/tourdemonad.html
Haskell programming
--
Brandon Allbery | 15 Dec 22:56 2012
Picon

Re: Hackage suggestion: Gather the list of the licenses of all dependencies of a package

On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 4:38 PM, Henk-Jan van Tuyl <hjgtuyl <at> chello.nl> wrote:
On Sat, 15 Dec 2012 16:14:59 +0100, Brandon Allbery <allbery.b <at> gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 9:01 AM, Petr P <petr.mvd <at> gmail.com> wrote:
So if I put cpphs into build-tools and I don't have it installed, the
build will fail? Is this a desired behavior, or a bug?

Shortcoming of cabal; it only "knows about" libraries because it is really
A work-around for this would be to add a dummy library to program-only packages.

But then what do you do about the current case, where the library imports a potentially dubious license dependency?

--
brandon s allbery kf8nh                               sine nomine associates
allbery.b <at> gmail.com                                  ballbery <at> sinenomine.net
unix, openafs, kerberos, infrastructure, xmonad        http://sinenomine.net

_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe <at> haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Malcolm Wallace | 15 Dec 15:15 2012

Re: Hackage suggestion: Gather the list of the licenses of all dependencies of a package


On 13 Dec 2012, at 18:40, Michael Snoyman wrote:

> I'm not quite certain what to make of:
> 
> If you have a commercial use for cpphs, and feel the terms of the (L)GPL
> are too onerous, you have the option of distributing unmodified binaries
> (only, not sources) under the terms of a different licence (see
> LICENCE-commercial).
> 
> It seems like that's saying "if you really want to, use the BSD license instead." But I'm not sure what the
legal meaning of "If you have a commercial use" is. Malcolm: could you clarify what the meaning is?

No, the LICENCE-commercial is not BSD.  Read it more carefully. :-)

So, I dual-licensed cpphs (which was originally only LGPL as a library, GPL as a binary), in response to a
request from a developer (working for a company) who wished to use it as a library linked into their own
software (rather than a standalone executable), but who was unable to convince his boss that LGPL would be
acceptable.  IIRC, the software was going to end up in some gadget to be sold (and therefore the code was
being distributed, indirectly).  The commercial licence I provided for him was intended to uphold the
spirit of the LGPL, without going as far as BSD in laxity.  So, if you simply want to use cpphs in a distributed
product (but not modify it), it is very easy.  The moment you want to distribute a modified version, you must
abide by the LGPL, which to me essentially means t
 hat you contribute back your changes to the community.

Regards,
    Malcolm
Malcolm Wallace | 15 Dec 15:25 2012

Re: Hackage suggestion: Gather the list of the licenses of all dependencies of a package


On 13 Dec 2012, at 10:41, Petr P wrote:

> In particular, we can have a BSD package that depends on a LGPL package, and this is fine for FOSS
developers. But for a commercial developer, this can be a serious issue that is not apparent until one
examines *every* transitive dependency.

This might a good time to remind everyone that every single program compiled by a standard GHC is linked
against an LGPL library (the Gnu multi-precision integer library) - unless you take care first to build
your own copy of the compiler against the integer-simple package instead of integer-gmp.  As far as I know,
there are no ready-packaged binary installers for GHC that avoid this LGPL'd dependency.

http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/ghc/wiki/ReplacingGMPNotes

Just saying.

Regards,
    Malcolm
Michael Snoyman | 15 Dec 17:54 2012

Re: Hackage suggestion: Gather the list of the licenses of all dependencies of a package




On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 4:25 PM, Malcolm Wallace <malcolm.wallace <at> me.com> wrote:

On 13 Dec 2012, at 10:41, Petr P wrote:

> In particular, we can have a BSD package that depends on a LGPL package, and this is fine for FOSS developers. But for a commercial developer, this can be a serious issue that is not apparent until one examines *every* transitive dependency.

This might a good time to remind everyone that every single program compiled by a standard GHC is linked against an LGPL library (the Gnu multi-precision integer library) - unless you take care first to build your own copy of the compiler against the integer-simple package instead of integer-gmp.  As far as I know, there are no ready-packaged binary installers for GHC that avoid this LGPL'd dependency.

http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/ghc/wiki/ReplacingGMPNotes

Just saying.


The difference between a library being (L)GPLed and this GMP issue is that, in the latter case, we have an escape route. I know of at least two companies which are actively considering switching entirely to simple-integer because of this issue. If a widely used package (e.g., cpphs) is not available under a permissive license, there's not such escape route available to users. (And note that I'm not actually *happy* about the GMP situation, but at least we have a possible solution.)

I would strongly recommend reconsidering the licensing decision of cpphs. Even if the LICENSE-commercial is sufficient for non-source releases of software to be protected[1], it introduces a very high overhead for companies to need to analyze a brand new license. Many companies have already decided BSD3, MIT, and a number of other licenses are acceptable. It could be very difficult to explain to a company, "Yes, we use this software which says it's LGPL, but it has this special extra license which, if I'm reading it correctly, means you can't be sued, but since the author of the package wrote it himself, I can't really guarantee what its meaning would be in a court of law."

Looking at the list of reverse dependencies[2], I see some pretty heavy hitters. Via haskell-src-exts[3] we end up with 75 more reverse dependencies. I'd also like to point out that cpphs is the only non-permissively-licensed dependency for a large number of packages.

I can give you more detailed information about my commercial experience privately. But I can tell you that, in the currently situation, I have created projects for clients for which Fay[4] would not be an option due to the cpphs licensing issue.

Michael

[1] I'm not sure of that, since IANAL.
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe <at> haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Malcolm Wallace | 16 Dec 00:10 2012

Re: Hackage suggestion: Gather the list of the licenses of all dependencies of a package


On 15 Dec 2012, at 16:54, Michael Snoyman wrote:

> I would strongly recommend reconsidering the licensing decision of cpphs. Even if the
LICENSE-commercial is sufficient for non-source releases of software to be protected[1], it
introduces a very high overhead for companies to need to analyze a brand new license. Many companies have
already decided BSD3, MIT, and a number of other licenses are acceptable.

Well, if a company is concerned enough to make an internal policy on open source licences at all, one might
hope that they would perform due diligence on them too.  For instance, the FSF have lawyers, and have done
enough legal work to be able to classify 48 licences as both "free" and GPL-compatible, a further 39
licences as "free" but non-GPL-compatible, and 27 open source licences that are neither "free" nor
GPL-compatible.  This kind of understanding is what lawyers are supposed to be for.  Making them look at
another (short) licence is not really a big deal, especially when it closely resembles BSD, which they
have already supposedly decided is good.

My suspicion, though, is that most of the companies who even think about this question are small, do not have
their own lawyers, and are making policy on the hoof, motivated purely by fear.  I also suspect that they do
not even have the resources to read the licence for each library in its entirety, to determine whether it is
in fact BSD3 or MIT, as claimed, or whether someone has subtly altered it.  Also, I think I could be pretty
confident that there are many shipping products that contain genuine BSD-licensed code, but which do not
comply with its terms.

> It could be very difficult to explain to a company, "Yes, we use this software which says it's LGPL, but it
has this special extra license which, if I'm reading it correctly, means you can't be sued, but since the
author of the package wrote it himself, I can't really guarantee what its meaning would be in a court of law."

Like I say, if someone claims the software to be BSD-licensed, someone has to read the licence text itself
anyway, to determine whether the claim is true.  Pretty much every copy of the BSD licence text differs
anyway, at least by the insertion of the authors' names in various places, and sometimes there are varying
numbers of clauses.

> Looking at the list of reverse dependencies[2], I see some pretty heavy hitters. Via
haskell-src-exts[3] we end up with 75 more reverse dependencies. I'd also like to point out that cpphs is
the only non-permissively-licensed dependency for a large number of packages.

I'm glad that cpphs is widely used.  I'm also glad that it remains free, and I disagree with you that its
dual-licence model is non-permissive.

I would like to encourage more Haskell developers to adopt free licensing.  Don't be bullied by BSD
evangelists!  BSD is not the only way to a good citizen of the community!  Your libraries can be delivered to
clients as products, without you having to give up all rights in them!

It's not like I'm saying to companies "if you make money out of my code, you have to pay me a fee".  All I'm
saying, to everyone, is "if you notice a bug in my code and fix it, tell me".  This is fully compatible with
allowing people to release my code to their clients inside products.

> I can give you more detailed information about my commercial experience privately. But I can tell you
that, in the currently situation, I have created projects for clients for which Fay[4] would not be an
option due to the cpphs licensing issue.

If you are complaining about the crazy policies that many companies adopt about the use of free software
within their business, then I have plenty of sympathy for that too.  I know of one which has a policy of "no use
of open source code whatsoever", but runs thousands of linux servers.  :-)  Also, many companies with large
numbers of software engineers on staff apparently prefer to buy crappy commercial products and pay
handsomely for non-existent support, instead of running high-quality open-source software with
neither initial nor ongoing costs, and where bugfixes are often available the same day as you report the
bug.  But hey ho.  Corporate policy is usually made by people with neither technical nor legal expertise.

As regards cpphs, if you don't want to use it because of its licences, that is your choice.  You can always use
some other implementation of the C pre-processor if you wish.   GHC has always refused to distribute cpphs,
on the basis of its GPL licence, and instead chose to distribute GNU's gcc on Windows.  :-)  (I hope you see the irony!)

Regards,
    Malcolm
Brandon Allbery | 15 Dec 18:39 2012
Picon

Re: Hackage suggestion: Gather the list of the licenses of all dependencies of a package

On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 9:25 AM, Malcolm Wallace <malcolm.wallace <at> me.com> wrote:
This might a good time to remind everyone that every single program compiled by a standard GHC is linked against an LGPL library (the Gnu multi-precision integer library) - unless you take care first to build your own

This is less relevant though, because gmp is not a Haskell library so linking against it doesn't pull significant chunks of its source code into your program.  Indeed, many GHC distributions dynamic-link against it, minimizing the legal concerns; and IIRC the gmp license explicitly allows the use GHC makes of it as long as the gmp symbols are not re-exported as part of its API (which they aren't).

--
brandon s allbery kf8nh                               sine nomine associates
allbery.b <at> gmail.com                                  ballbery <at> sinenomine.net
unix, openafs, kerberos, infrastructure, xmonad        http://sinenomine.net

_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe <at> haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe

Gmane