Re: Copyright question

[Marc Balmer <marc@...>]

Am 14.08.11 14:05, schrieb Lars Doelle:
> Kein-Hong,
> 
>> But if you are thinking to have some claim over any kind of 
>> _mechanism_, then I think there are going to be *big* issues...
>>
>>> [snip]
>>> 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.
>>
>> Discussing mechanisms and talking about code with GPL? That's an 
>> even bigger problem, a 30-ton brontosaurus.
>>
>> Of course I have uses for GPL too, but I have huge reservations 
>> about what you are doing.
> 
> To make myself clear here, it is not about extensions of the Lua core,
> but about user's side material.
> 
> As I put a different load onto Lua, I necessarily touch Lua's expressive limits,
> but i do take the purity of the language very serious. I won't even consider
> the project, if it were not so. Thus i might stumble over limits and extensions,
> that would make life easier in this cases, along the way, but the package would
> do without any.
> 
> If i would think extending the machinery would be truly necessary, i would
> release a patch under MIT, this is clear. The problem i sense is the other way
> round, i.e. a possible tendency on user space contributions being only or
> preferable accepted only under Lua's license itself by a community otherwise
> interested into bringing Lua forward. That's my concern and my question.
> 
> 
>> Marc Balmer <marc@msys.ch>  (micro systems)
> 
>> 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.
> 
> If a company wants only free parts, i don't care. They can hardly be considered
> professional entities IMO if they try to do business only on one side, though I
> hear such funny customer's dreams on a daily basis.

You should maybe check the facts first, especially in my own case.  I
have probably contributed more opensource code than you have every
written ;)

Yes, we take source code for our commercial products, and yes, they are
proprietary products, but no, that does not mean we don't give anything
back, much to the contrary.

GPL is a no-no.

And to tell you a secret:  GPL'ed code is even a no-no in several
operating systems, like the BSDs... ;)