lua-users home
lua-l archive

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

On Fri, 2011-05-13 at 23:41 -0400, Matthew Frazier wrote:
> 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.

[This is a consolidated response to this entire thread.]

I choose the GPL3 license because it is the one I prefer.  As with all
such decisions, it was a reasoned one and not taken lightly. There is no
real point in further discussion of the license or why I choose to use
it.  I am aware of the the consequences of my choice and the advantages
and disadvantages of other licenses.  

If the license is not compatible with your requirements, then that is
regrettable.   If this small snippet of code is so useful in concept
then I'm sure a version which you will be able to use will soon become

This code is a gift.  If you cannot use it, then please pass it by and
hopefully something else which suits your needs will arise.  If you can
use it, then that is good.