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

[David Favro <lua@...>]

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.

> The simple fact is that many
> (most) people around here have MIT-licensed projects already, and
> releasing a GPL library will prevent many potential users from using
> the library.

Actually, it doesn't prevent them from using it, their existing MIT codebase
is compatible with GPL.

> Thus obviously upsetting those people.

Not obvious at all.  This is the part that I don't understand: why would
that upset someone?  It's not your software, you didn't write it, someone
else did.  They chose to release it under the license they like, and they
aren't forcing or even asking you to use it, so why would you be upset at
their choice of license?  If you don't like it, you needn't use it, and you
are free to write the same module yourself and release it under any license
you like.

> I too support the freedom of developers to use whatever licence they
> wish. I'm sure that Dimitris is quite capable of leaving his library
> as GPL if that's what he really feels is what he wants to do.

Obviously I can't speak for him, but in some way it presumably is, since
that _is_ what he initially chose to do; that's why I was curious why he
changed his mind.

-- David