|
zlib is a fine choice with proper wording though, and especially
when making a library that statically links & provides lua as
some sort of component, it can make it easier for users of the
library because they don't need to tack on yet another copyright
notice if they ship with it. (Yes I agree it's in a very
understandable right of the authors to ask for such a notice in
the final program, I'm just pointing out there is a point to be
made why zlib can be more convenient for the end user - no matter
if you think that is worth a change or not)
On 10/26/2016 09:56 PM, Charles Heywood
wrote:
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.
Does it give some benefits to Lua authors?
Why not using extremely permissive license like the
following:
--
|
