Re: Licensing question

[james@...]

Why not submit the Lua license to make it an official
oss license? the process seems very simple.

Regards,
Jim

http://www.opensource.org/docs/certification_mark.html

Getting a License Approved
Put the license on a web page in HTML form. We will convert it into the same
style as the existing approved licenses. You can help us by publishing it in
that style yourself to save us the conversion step. ASCII text is preferred
if asked to post your license to the 'licence-discuss' mailing list.

http://www.lua.org/copyright.html

Tell us which existing OSI-approved license is most similar to your license.
Explain why that license will not suffice for your needs. If your proposed
license is derived from a license we have already approved, describe exactly
what you have changed. This document is not part of the license; it is
solely to help the board understand and review your license.

> - "The modified BSD license": this seems a strong candidate. However, it
> does not cover the documentation, but only the software itself.
>
> - X11 license says: "provided that the above copyright notice(s) and
> this permission notice appear in all copies of the Software and that
> [both] appear in supporting documentation". Notice that they demand that
> the copyright notice appear in the documentation *and* in the software.
> How does this apply to binary distributions? Must the binary ("the
> software") contain the copyright notice?
>
> - expat (or MIT) license: "The above copyright notice and this
> permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial
> portions of the Software." Again, how does that apply to binary
> (re)distribuition?

Explain how software distributed under your license can be used in
conjunction with software distributed under other open source licenses.
Which license do you think will take precedence for derivative or combined
works? Is there any software license that is entirely incompatible with your
proposed license?.

- It's not compatible (??), hence the need for a new approved Lua license.

Send your proposed license by email to license-approval@opensource.org.
Indicate in the email whether you want the license posted to the
license-discuss list with your identification or anonymously.

( forward this message. :)

If we find that the license does not conform to the Open Source Definition,
we will work with you to resolve the problems. At the same time, we will
monitor the license-discuss list and work with you to resolve any problems
uncovered in public comment. As part of this process, we may also seek
outside legal advice on license issues. Once we are assured that the license
conforms to the Open Source Definition and has received thorough discussion
on license-discuss or by other reviewers, and there are no remaining issues
that we judge significant, we will notify you that the license has been
approved, copy it to our website, and add it to the list below.



----- Original Message -----
From: "Roberto Ierusalimschy" <roberto@inf.puc-rio.br>
To: "Multiple recipients of list" <lua-l@tecgraf.puc-rio.br>
Sent: Friday, May 17, 2002 1:20 PM
Subject: Re: Licensing question


> > Nonetheless, repeating myself, we need an official word from FSF on GPL
> > compatibility, or we need the Lua authors/ Tecgraf to kindly switch to a
> > standard license.
>
> We are considering switching Lua license to a standard license, but we
> cannot find a suitable one. Maybe we do not understand them, but it seems
> to us that none of the "usual" licenses cover the kind of problems we
> are having with the current license (besides the FSF sanction):
>
> - "The modified BSD license": this seems a strong candidate. However, it
> does not cover the documentation, but only the software itself.
>
> - X11 license says: "provided that the above copyright notice(s) and
> this permission notice appear in all copies of the Software and that
> [both] appear in supporting documentation". Notice that they demand that
> the copyright notice appear in the documentation *and* in the software.
> How does this apply to binary distributions? Must the binary ("the
> software") contain the copyright notice?
>
> - expat (or MIT) license: "The above copyright notice and this
> permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial
> portions of the Software." Again, how does that apply to binary
> (re)distribuition?
>
> -- Roberto
>
>
>