lua-users home
lua-l archive

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

Björn De Meyer wrote:
I also apologise to but in here, but if I understand what the FSF says, it is exactly the requirement that the copyright is mentioned in the documentation that could cause incompatiblity with the GPL. The problem with the GPL is that it forbids any extra limitations on distribution outside the GPL.

The clause in the original BSD license that caused GPL incompatibility is this:

  All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software
  must display the following acknowledgement: This product includes
  software developed by the University of California, Berkeley and its

The Lua license does not have such a clause. Nonetheless, repeating myself, we need an official word from FSF on GPL compatibility, or we need the Lua authors/ Tecgraf to kindly switch to a standard license. I and a few others on the list would opt for the latter. When even the Lua authors are misinterpreting their own license, the difficulty of answering every day questions about "little licenses" (those not covered by common sources of license info such and is plain to see.

By the way, I think the following two steps in the process for "Getting a License Approved" at are very telling:

2. Tell us which existing OSI-approved license is most similar to your license. Explain why that license will not suffice for your needs. If your proposed license is derived from a license we have already approved, describe exactly what you have changed. This document is not part of the license; it is solely to help the board understand and review your license.

3. Explain how software distributed under your license can be used in conjunction with software distributed under other open source licenses. Which license do you think will take precedence for derivative or combined works? Is there any software license that is entirely incompatible with your proposed license?.


OpenPGP encrypted mail welcome.