[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- Subject: Re: Copyright question
- From: Rob Kendrick <rjek@...>
- Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2011 09:10:40 +0100
On Sun, Aug 14, 2011 at 11:03:33PM +0200, Marc Balmer wrote:
> Am 14.08.11 22:51, schrieb Lars Doelle:
> > thanks for the hint. I do think licensing is not to limit but to maximize
> > the use of a software. Thus mixing licenses for different parts is as
> > much a matter of design as mixing different languages in one project.
> > It is also a matter of getting clear about the use cases. To some degree
> > i'm very much at the beginning here. To summarize, choosing Lua as a
> > base was a good decision, both from a technical point of view as for
> > its very aware communitity.
> Choosing GPL over a MIT/BSD style license mean limiting the use of a
> software. Think of it. There is a reason why many smart people choose
> an MIT/BSD/ISC style license over the GPL.
Equally, there are lots of reasons smart people choose the GPL :)
My point of view is that having a more liberal licence has not damaged
Lua's popularity, only increased it. It gets more visibility because it
can be more easily used in commercial projects as well as open/free
ones. And the contribution issue doesn't really occur with Lua, given
its "thrown over the wall" development and release process.