[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- Subject: Re: Copyright question
- From: David Kastrup <dak@...>
- Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2011 13:06:57 +0200
Marc Balmer <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> Am 14.08.11 12:31, schrieb Lars Doelle:
>>>>> From: Lorenzo Donati<email@example.com>
>>>>>> -- Copyright (c) 2011 Lars Dölle<firstname.lastname@example.org>
>>>> hereby granted.
>>> Anyway, to be fair, It wasn't necessary. I stand corrected, as you may
>>> have read in another branch of this thread. Thus sorry for the noise.
>> I might have written the same note. To explain myself, i'm working on a
>> larger Lua-package which i hope to publish.
>> Now having a strong GPL background, i would not license my work under
>> MIT/X11 and wonder, if this would be considered a violation of habits,
>> thus making a publication partically useless. Could anyone please tell me
>> if there's a common position here on this matter.
> I would never even look at your code if it is GPL licensed. I strongly
> suggest you reconsider your decision. There are many reason why Lua is
> used in embedded and commercial products, and the license is one reason.
Well, Lua is licensed under MIT/X11 in order to give people freedoms
regarding their licensing choices, including licensing under the GPL.
Trying to turn MIT/X11 into strong copyleft by social stigmatizing seems
to be counter to the original licensing intentions.
My personal take on this as someone being in favor of copyleft is to
make the licensing choice dependent on the nature of the work. If I am
doing infrastructural stuff of general interest, like extensions,
generally useful libraries and similar, I'd likely stay with the
upstream license mostly in order not to promote splintering of
If, however, the project is using Lua merely as an implementation
language and otherwise is pretty separate from it, its developer
community would likely be rather separate from upstream Lua. In this
case, I would pick my license according to the intentions I have with
the project. There are borderline cases, like more general-purpose
lirabries and parts within the project that might be useful elsewhere.
Whether to turn them into a separate project or offer dual licenses for
them is a question I would likely not address unless someone
specifically would demonstrate an understandable need for it.
There is no point picking a fight with me over that stance: it is
obviously a personal choice compatible with my own personal standards.