Hi all,
The only thread I found about the license of Lua was one from 2002, so I would like to open a new one to propose a change from the current MIT license to ZLIB license. Both are popular licenses, but I think MIT is more like a blindly accepted license for the reason to follow. MIT and ZLIB licenses are very similar, however, the MIT license has this statement:
>> The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in
***all copies or substantial portions*** of the Software.
Now, what ***all copies or substantial portions*** is, that's very subjective. Does it talks about the source code? The binary distributions? Both? How much is "substantial"?
The ZLIB license, I feel like it's more clear than the MIT license:
>> 1. The origin of this software must not be misrepresented...
>> 2. Altered source versions must be plainly marked as such...
>> 3. This notice may not be removed or altered from any source distribution.
ZLIB is much more clear about not misinterpreting the origin of the software (and forces to keep the notice in source distributions).
MIT is not clear regarding the origin of the software (is just keeping the notice in the source code enough? what if I don't distribute the source at all?). So (a) it doesn't protect the authors and (b) can hold back people from using it (at least people who understands the legal issues with the license).
