Re: The impact of a module's license on the requiring Lua program

[Alexander Gladysh <agladysh@...>]

On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 20:34, David Favro <lua@meta-dynamic.com> wrote:
> On 04/11/2012 11:11 AM, Matthew Wild wrote:
>
>> I couldn't say that I saw any bullying.
>
> How about, "vociferous complaining"?  I think that the volley of outcry
> (such as, "I won't even look at your code") that erupts on this list anytime
> someone posts some GPL code is obviously aimed at trying to induce (or
> perhaps "bully") them to relicense it permissively, if in no other manner
> than a sort of group-exclusion ethos.

Your choice of words ("very saddened") is an outcry of the same sort.

People are (usually) free to license their code as they wish.

And we, members of community, are free to express our opinion on that license.

In my opinion, to Lua-related code under GPL is to go against
established practice (to say the least). Many developers do not know
of that practice, and pick license without much thought. In this case,
I believe, it is usually a good thing to re-license code under MIT to
widen adoption (GPL *does* restrict it!). And, if an author picked GPL
consciously, he is not likely do give it up easily, no matter how many
community members will refuse to see his code. In this case all we can
say is — "thank you for sharing".

Alexander.