 |
lua-l archive |
|
|
||
|
Jamie Webb wrote:
On Fri, Aug 13, 2004 at 02:38:00PM +0100, Daniel Silverstone wrote:Daniel Silverstone wrote:>(TTOTD: the above is the MIT licence with a small amount of >de-restriction applied)How is that de-restriction?
Okay, derestriction is the wrong word. Tighter constraint on freenes might be more accurate
For people scared by that idea... the only change was to remove the word 'sublicense' from the list of rights in the first paragraph.AIUI the ability to sublicense the software is what allows people to include your work in commercial products, or indeed GPLed code, which could completely change the nature of the license. Arguably though, that permission is implicit in the "without restriction" part, in which case your change has no effect. So, yes I am scared by slight modifications to standard licenses.
This isn't how the people I discussed the change viewed the meaning of the word
What was your intention in removing this word?
The intention and AIUI the effect is to prevent people from re-licencing sections of the code or including the code directly in other codebases and subsuming the licence in a viral licence way (such as GPL)
Then again, I view the GPL as a non-free entity so perhaps I am odd in this manner.
If people are genuinely concerned about the licence then I'm prepared to alter the licence on the profiler to revert it to the MIT word-for-word.
D.