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

[Mike Pall <mikelu-1204@...>]

Roberto Ierusalimschy wrote:
> > While you're at it: Lua uses a variant of the MIT license, not the
> > MIT/X11 license. There's a difference. I've made that mistake
> > before. A discussion is somewhere in the mailing list archives.
> >
> > I've decided to refer to it as the MIT license and link to:
> >   http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php
>
> Since Lua 5.0 (2003) we have adopted the MIT license, not a variant. If
> there is any difference, we should correct it. I just compared the text
> in that link with the Lua license, and did not see any difference. Could
> you point out what it is?

I'm just repeating what was said here:

  http://lua-users.org/lists/lua-l/2011-08/msg00508.html

Ok, so the MIT/X11 license probably was first. And what we call
the MIT license nowadays is really the MIT/Expat license. But all
of that is mostly of historic interest.

Anyway, using the naming convention from opensource.org makes
sense. So let's just stay with "MIT license" when we refer to the
license of Lua (and most of its ecosystem).

The actual license text needs to be included in full length in
every package, anyway. That ought to make the lawyers happy, too.

--Mike