[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- Subject: Re: Copyright question
- From: Marc Balmer <marc@...>
- Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2011 14:14:36 +0200
Am 14.08.11 14:05, schrieb Lars Doelle:
>> But if you are thinking to have some claim over any kind of
>> _mechanism_, then I think there are going to be *big* issues...
>>> 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 <firstname.lastname@example.org> (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
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... ;)