[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- Subject: RE: License
- From: "John Passaniti" <jpass@<a href="/cgi-bin/echo.cgi?rochester.rr.com">...</a>>
- Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 13:00:46 -0500
> I agree with Reuben. As near as I can tell, the
> other licenses used for open source scripting
> don't seem to include a no language change clause.
Can someone please explain to me why this is even an issue?
When I was first evaluating Lua as the scripting language for a product
I was working on, I read the license. It took a minute. It was clearly
written and didn't require me to go to some archive of standard licenses
where I must wade through endless text-- and often text that is really
disguised essays on free and open source software.
I'm all for standards where there is a benefit that can be objectively
measured. In the case of the Lua license, I see no benefit in adopting
someone else's license. Before that is done, I'd like those who see the
need for a "standard" license to state the objective benefits.