Re: Licensing question

[Björn De Meyer <bjorn.demeyer@...>]

Luiz Henrique de Figueiredo wrote:
> I thought that was what we meant, but I was wrong. What we mean is what
> the current Lua license says: "Lua 4.0 Copyright (C) 1994-2000 TeCGraf, PUC-Rio"
> must appear somewhere in the distribution, not necessarily in the binary;
> it's ok if it's in the documentation or README or somewhere else.
> 
> We definitely want Lua to remain as free as possible and GPL compatible.
> 
> I'm very sorry for the noise.
> --lhf

I also apologise to but in here, but if I understand what the 
FSF says, it is exactly the requirement that the copyright is 
mentioned in the documentation that could cause incompatiblity 
with the GPL. The problem with the GPL is that it forbids any 
extra limitations on distribution outside the GPL. So,
we have to find out whether the requirement to mention Lua's 
copyright in the documentation is an 'incompatible' requirement.

I personally don't think so, but perhaps the people at the FSF 
think differently about it, so maybe we should ask them. A solution 
could be to allows "double licensing" under the GPL and the classic 
"lua" license. In that way GPL compatibility is guaranteed. wxel, just
my
two eurocents.



-- 
"No one knows true heroes, for they speak not of their greatness." -- 
Daniel Remar.
Björn De Meyer 
bjorn.demeyer@pandora.be