Re: The impact of a module's license on the requiring Lua program

[David Favro <lua@...>]

On 04/12/2012 04:30 AM, Miles Bader wrote:

> It's good that people should be informed about the ramifications of
> their license choice, but given the tendency of such discussions to
> deteriorate into flamewars, it seems best to simply say "BTW, Lua has
> a tradition of using MIT/BSD licensing", point at the wikipedia pages
> or something, and change the subject...

I know that this thread has gone on too long, but in my opinion it was too
long from the very first post about the luaprompt license: this list has had
these threads before and there was no need to repeat it.  I would like to
suggest that everyone might consider, when someone posts to the list that
they have released some software (regardless of the license), that they are
an adult who has already made a considered decision about which license they
would like to use for their _own_ software, the ramifications of which they
are perfectly aware, and there is no need to post _anything_ about their
choice of license.  Is the Lua list really the place to 'inform' (or
whatever verb you like) people about their choice of license?  Once that
first post is made, additional responses will inevitably follow, resulting
in yet another thread such as this.

I am not advocating for any one license over another, only for the right of
a developer to release his software under the license of his own choice,
whatever that license might be.  And for keeping the Lua list on-topic,
which I believe is the language, not people's choice of license.

-- David