AllRightsReserved has two possible meanings

[erikd]

Currently a license value of AllRightsReserved has two possible meaining:

• No license was specified and we are defaulting to AllRightsReserved.
• The license has been explicitly set to AllRightsReserved because it is, for example, an internal company specific application.

I propose that we allow a distinction to be made between these two to give us:

• ExplicitAllRightsReserved
• NoLicenseAllRightsReserved

When reading existing cabal files, "AllRightsReserved" would be converted to ExplicitAllRightsReserved and a missing license field would be interpretted as NoLicenseAllRightsReserved.

Comments?

[23Skidoo]

/cc @dcoutts

[dcoutts]

Mm, yeah ok. I think we should add UnspecifiedLicense. So we keep AllRightsReserved as-is, as the explict one, and map none-specified to UnspecifiedLicense.

[erikd]

Sure, that has the same semantic meaning. I'll tweak my patch and submit it.

[dcoutts]

Cheers.

[23Skidoo]

Fixed by #2147.