[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- Subject: Re: about the next version's license agreement
- From: Gambit <gambit@...>
- Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 03:34:58 -0700
Just to ring in with my $0.02 -
I've been a big fan of the BSD-style license. It lets you do what you
want. Period. No wierd clauses, no inclusion clauses, nothing like that.
And I quote from GNU's page (if anyone's going to be annoyingly anal about
licenses, it'll be them):
"If you want a simple, permissive non-copyleft free software
license, the modified BSD license is a reasonable choice. However, it is
risky to recommend use of ``the BSD license'', because confusion could
easily occur and lead to use of the flawed original BSD License. To avoid
this risk, you can suggest the X11 license instead. The X11 license and the
revised BSD license are more or less equivalent."
Anyways, now back to your regularly scheduled firefight.
At 04:06 PM 4/18/2002 +0900, you wrote:
Joshua Jensen wrote:
> It's a Catch-22. If Lua is GPL'ed, there is no way Lua would ship in
> many commercial products again, especially since most companies, I would
> suppose, can't afford to release their source code publicly. On the
> other hand, you can't embed Lua in a GPL'ed product.
At no time did I suggest that Lua switch to a GPL license.
Your conclusion that Lua can't be embeded in GPL'd software is
unfounded. That's exactly why I've posed the question: is the Lua
license GPL compatible? It needs an official answer. Or if Lua adopted
a standard license the answer is readily available at
OpenPGP encrypted mail welcome.