lua-users home
lua-l archive

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

The license included with Lua has proven itself to have no issues excluding minor concerns with what the license covers. There's no reason to change the license, especially to something as unprofessional as a "do what the fuck you want to but it's not my fault" license. The MIT license states that you must include the license with the software and that the authors aren't liable for anything caused by the software, which to me is the same thing as the above mentioned license, but with a more respectable wording.

On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 12:41 PM Egor Skriptunoff <egor.skriptunoff@gmail.com> wrote:

On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 8:15 PM, Felipe Ferreira <felipefsdev@gmail.com> wrote:

Both ZLIB and BSD gives the end-user the same freedom for modifying the software and use for whatever purpose. The only difference is how the copyright notice must be reproduced: (1) for ZLIB, the copyright must be retained in the source-code and (2) for BSD (Simplified BSD License), the copyright must be retained in the source-code and ADDED to the binary form and documentation.


Sorry for my (probably) stupid question, but why so much attention is paid to reproducing the copyright notice?
Does it give some benefits to Lua authors?
Why not using extremely permissive license like the following:
https://tldrlegal.com/license/do-what-the-fuck-you-want-to-but-it's-not-my-fault-public-license-v1-(wtfnmfpl-1.0)#fulltext
--