Re: License

["Thatcher Ulrich" <tu@...>]

IMHO, the license of an open-source package is not the place to convey
your character.  Convey your character in great code and
documentation!  But use a boring standard license, because it makes it
that much easier for non-lawyers to reuse your code.

Not that there's anything particularly wrong with the Lua license, but
just as a general principle.

On Jan 20, 2002 at 09:53 -0600, jim@mathies.com wrote:
> your right, that works. although i kinda like the acknowledgment
> line. it adds a little character. :)
> 
> 
> /*    claim that you wrote the original software. If you use this software in a  *
> /*    product, an acknowledgment in the product documentation would be greatly   *
> /*    appreciated (but it is not required).                                      *
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Luiz Henrique de Figueiredo" <lhf@tecgraf.puc-rio.br>
> To: "Multiple recipients of list" <lua-l@tecgraf.puc-rio.br>
> Sent: Sunday, January 20, 2002 5:40 PM
> Subject: Re: License
> 
> 
> | >I took a look at this MIT license. One draw back of this license (and it seems all the 
> | >free-software licenses on opensource.org) is the lack of protection for
> | >the Lua api specification. Without 
> | >
> | >/*  - Altered source versions must be plainly marked as such, and must not be    *
> | >/*    misrepresented as being the original software.                             *
> | >
> | >The Lua api could potentially be corrupted by an adaptation of Lua. I really like
> | >the Lua license as it is, and I don't see a complimentary license on opensource.org.
> | 
> | Try the zlib license: http://www.opensource.org/licenses/zlib-license.html
> | As far as I can tell, this and others come from the classical regexp package
> | by Henry Spencer, reproduced below.
> | 
> |  Copyright (c) 1986, 1993, 1995 by University of Toronto.
> |  Written by Henry Spencer.  Not derived from licensed software.
> | 
> |  Permission is granted to anyone to use this software for any
> |  purpose on any computer system, and to redistribute it in any way,
> |  subject to the following restrictions:
> | 
> |  1. The author is not responsible for the consequences of use of
> | this software, no matter how awful, even if they arise
> | from defects in it.
> | 
> |  2. The origin of this software must not be misrepresented, either
> | by explicit claim or by omission.
> | 
> |  3. Altered versions must be plainly marked as such, and must not
> | be misrepresented (by explicit claim or omission) as being
> | the original software.
> | 
> |  4. This notice must not be removed or altered.
> | 
> | I agree that we need something like #3 above.
> | --lhf
> | 
> | 

-- 
Thatcher Ulrich <tu@tulrich.com>
http://tulrich.com