[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- Subject: Re: Licensing question
- From: John Belmonte <jvb@...>
- Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 20:31:17 +0900
Binaries that link with the Lua library already contain a copyright string:
$Lua: Lua 4.0 Copyright (C) 1994-2000 TeCGraf, PUC-Rio $
$Authors: W. Celes, R. Ierusalimschy & L. H. de Figueiredo $
I think we mean that you're not allowed to remove this from you binary.
I'm not an expert about licenses, but given this interpretation, I'd
guess that not only is the Lua license not GPL compatible, but it also
doesn't meet the requirements of most definitions of free software.
Do you have some evidence of the licenses which you've said are similar
to Lua's (BSD and zlib) being interpreted in this way, as far as some
stipulation about binary contents?
Take the BSD license, which clearly states:
Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
In other words, it is enough to include the copyright notice anywhere
with the distribution. There is no requirment on binary content.
In any case, there is no restriction on your final program; you can sell it
or distribute it freely, as you wish. Lua's license is not viral like GPL.
A subtle point, but the word "viral" has negative connotations, which is
fine if you are an opponent to the use of the GPL license in all
situations. However, I was hoping you would take a more neutral stance
on the license choices made by other producers of software.
OpenPGP encrypted mail welcome.