RE: about the next version's license agreement

[Nick Trout <Nick.Trout@...>]

> There are already several instances of license flamewars in lua-l's
> history, and as I see it no point in having another one.  I tried to
> state clearly that I'm not promoting or defending the GPL.  
> Likewise I'm
> not intersted in debates of BSD vs. GPL philosophy, or 
> hearing about the
> evils of the GPL.
> 
> To summarize my original postings, I had asked if there was 
> progress on
> switching Lua to a standard license, which the Lua authors had once
> stated was under consideration.  Several standard licenses 
> are available
> which have equivalent meaning to Lua's current license.  One 
> benefit of
> using a standard license is to answer the question of GPL 
> compatibility.
>  Since it is a fact that GPL software is in widespread use, as a
> practical matter I would like to know of Lua can be embedded in such
> software.

I sympathise with John and thanks for following this up. I'm too thick to
understand these licenses and how they interrate. There are several pieces
of the GNU license which seem to be ambiguous, and it even seems to
contradict itself. It seems highly ironic that legal speak which is supposed
to lay down the facts in black and white should create such a grey area!

> lhf informs me that they are looking into the GPL 
> compatibility question.

Probably best to let GNU decide, they should be best qualified. If GNU say
its compatible with them there seems little point in changing the existing
license. My current employers seem happy with the current license. I dont
remember anyone complaining about the actual Lua license, its just how it
relates to others that causes the problems (I'm not sure I even know which
questions to ask, never mind how to interpret the licenses and find the
solution!). If the license changes, as long as its as flexible as the
current one I dont have a problem at all.

Regards,
Nick