Re: Lua License

[Reuben Thomas <rrt@...>]

> This is almost exactly what we mean in our Lua license. Is it not?
> There is only an extra bit about marking modified versions as such.
> (How do the other licenses handle this?)

BSD just requires that the license be repeated in modified versions,
saying nothing about what you call them. I guess most licenses leave that
to copyright and trademark law (including the GPL; the name Linux, for
example, is protected by being a trademark, not by the GPL that covers its
source code).

The advantage of using the BSD license for Lua is simply that you can say
"we use the BSD" and lots of people (especially non-technical people,
e.g. managers and lawyers) will immediately be happy. I suspect that Lua
has enough momentum behind it now that the clause about not calling
modified versions Lua is unnecessary (although I can see that Lua's design
does leave it peculiarly vulnerable to this sort of treatment).