[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- Subject: Re: Announcement of wxLua
- From: "Nick Trout" <nick@...>
- Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 12:34:41 -0000
> Just because someone has the ability to write a program doesn't necessarily
> mean they are aware of the legal or political aspects of programming. I
> started programming at a young age and I can tell you I had little
> understanding of copyrights or software licenses... that came a few decades
> later and with the help of a kind person here and there.
While I agree that these open source licenses can be quite difficult to
understand for the lay person, removing all trace of the original authors
credit is somewhat cheeky. The least that can be done is issue a thanks or
credit for the original author. Unless you start a piece of code from scratch
you are using someone elses work. Lua is quite clear about this, you must
state that you have modified any Lua code. wxBasic source includes the LGPL
license and on the web page for wxLua, the wxWindows license is included
(which I believe is very close to LGPL if not identical) and states, (I found
this just by scan reading, so it cant be that difficult) :-
GNU LIBRARY GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR COPYING, DISTRIBUTION AND MODIFICATION
1. You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Library's
complete source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided
that you conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an
appropriate copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty; keep
intact all the notices that refer to this License and to the
absence of any warranty; and distribute a copy of this License
along with the Library.
2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Library or any
portion of it, thus forming a work based on the Library, and
copy and distribute such modifications or work under the terms
of Section 1 above, provided that you also meet all of these
a) The modified work must itself be a software library.
b) You must cause the files modified to carry prominent notices
stating that you changed the files and the date of any change.
> You may have done this so forgive me, but it may have been better to first
> contact the person in question in confidence. This way it's possible to
> judge their understanding of their faults and "eagerness to correct them"
> before resorting to criticism in public forums.
I think Mr Williams and Mr Cuny are rightly annoyed, I would be. This issue,
for those who understand it (and I'm no expert) chips away at the very essence
of open source development. Its not code to be rebadged, its code to be
developed and expanded. This may not be as such a personal attack. Who knows
how many copies of software libraries are out there which have "borrowed" code
in them for which the original author will get no credit either because the
license has been ignored or overlooked.
In Pauls defence, he did take the site down immediately and he has explained
to me that he is working to resolve the problem. I believe there was no malace
or wrongdoing intended, more a mistake. I believe these posts were made to
show that people are concerned about license issues and they are not to be