 |
lua-l archive |
|
|
||
|
On 05/13/2011 10:59 PM, David Favro wrote:
On 05/13/2011 08:17 PM, Alexander Gladysh wrote:Any specific reason why would you release this under GPL v.3?We all have the right to release our code under any license we please. It's not my code in this instance, but why does one need to have a reason? -- David
Well, the vast majority of Lua code - even application code - is released under the MIT license, and code released under the GPLv3 would require all code that uses the module to itself be licensed under the GPLv3 [1]. For a small utility module like this one, using the GPL provides little tangible benefits and would greatly impede adoption.
Sometimes there exist valid reasons for using the GPL as opposed to other licenses. For Lua libraries, I can only think of two cases where licensing under the GPL would be necessary: (1) if Mr. Jerius' workplace requires him to release the code under the GPL, or (2) if the library interfaces with code that is itself licensed under the GPL, and thus is required to be GPL itself.
There exists a great temptation when one is new to open source to release everything under the GPL, because FREEDOM AND SOFTWARE JUSTICE!!!! Practically, though, the GPL is not a very useful license - mostly due to linking complications.
If neither of the two reasons above applies, and Mr. Jarius would like to keep his code under copyleft, the LGPL may be a better alternative due to the lack of a "viral" nature. If, however, he has no particular reason to use the GPL, then it may be better to switch to MIT to match Lua community convention on the matter.
[1] Technically, the definition of "linking" is not strictly defined with regards to dynamic languages, but most of the GPL people seem to think that `import` and `require` constitute linking. I would be inclined to disagree, but there is no official definition until a case involving dynamic language code hits the courts.
-- Regards, Matthew "LeafStorm" Frazier http://leafstorm.us/