Please provide a proper license tag in the Cabal file

[peti]

Would you consider using a license type that's supported by Cabal for your package so, i.e. the PublicDomain license?

[k0ral]

What's the issue with OtherLicense ?

[peti]

It's not a license. It's a dummy entry that means "I don't know" and that does not convey any information. This makes life harder for people who try to distribute your packages, i.e. in NixOS or openSUSE because we cannot tell whether the package is free software or not from the Cabal file.

[k0ral]

On one hand, OtherLicense is an admission of ignorance, on the other hand PublicDomain is a lie given that the project is published under WTFPL which is not equivalent to public domain.
If lying is what it takes to save lives, I'll consider crossing the line :) .

I'll update the license information on next release.

[peti]

I am not a lawyer. I just saw that some people do consider the license equivalent to "public domain". Personally, I would like best if you would re-license your project under an established free software license like BSD2 or MIT, because those licenses accomplish the same thing without ambiguity or profanity. It's your call, though, just my 2 cents. I'm seeing this issue entirely through the glasses of someone who wants to maximize the convenience for people who package and distribute your code -- and for us, established well-known licenses are great.

[k0ral]

License is now PublicDomain as of release 1.2.0.0 .