I must say I anticipated objections to the GPL but now I'm a little confused. The same person who says the library is next to unusable if its placed under the GPL later says that he'd consider using it because it's a great commercial weapon. In any case, and although I prefer to view the GPL as a political weapon, I think I'm going to stick with it. This as well as other such modules I'll be releasing in the immediate and hopefully more distant future are released in the hope that they'll be useful to others. If these others are commercial companies that's ok, if they are other free software developers who want to create useful software for others that's even better.
I understand any trouble on behalf of the former, especially those who don't want to ride the open source hype and want to ship proprietary products, but I don't really care about it. I also understand, to some degree, objections on behalf of the latter (follow free software developers) but I can't say I share them. The basic "trouble" with the GPL is that it refuses one the freedom to to take away other people's freedoms and that's ok in my book I guess. The only reason for me not to go with the GPL would be if this strategy would ultimately benefit free software but I can't see why that would be so for the time being. So while I understand (or at least I think I do) grievances about the GPL I'll have to stick with it. At least the standalone interpreter should be of universal utility even so.
Just one build failure to fix, putting the libraries at the end of
the compile line in the order in which they require one another:
luap: luap.c prompt.c prompt.h
$(CC) -o luap ${CFLAGS} ${LUA_CFLAGS} luap.c prompt.c
${LUA_LDFLAGS} ${LDFLAGS}
otherwise on this system (Ubuntu Linux 32-bit) the "make" floodgates
with errors about undefined symbols.
