FW: [LuaCheia] New sourceforge project.

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
11 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

FW: [LuaCheia] New sourceforge project.

Asko Kauppi-2
Because of the modular structure, we'll end up having parts that are GPL, or
any other Open Source license for that matter... What part would you think
the Zlib covers?

-ak


-----Original Message-----
From: Björn De Meyer [[hidden email]]
Sent: 11. helmikuuta 2003 2:48
To: Multiple recipients of list
Subject: [LuaCheia] New sourceforge project.


I decided to start a new Sourceforge project 
because of the space restrictions on the wiki, 
mentioned in another mail. I would like to ask 
of those of you who are interested in the project 
to register a Sourceforge username if you don't 
have one already, and mail it to me, so I can add 
you to the project, when it gets approved. Thank you.

FYI: I chose the zlib license as this is really the 
least common denominator I could think of. I hope
this is acceptable.


-- 
"No one knows true heroes, for they speak not of their greatness." -- 
Daniel Remar.
Björn De Meyer 
[hidden email]
###########################################
This message has been scanned by F-Secure Anti-Virus for Microsoft Exchange.


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: FW: [LuaCheia] licening [was: New sourceforge project.9

Martin Spernau
I would suggest the Lua-license, as many of the modules to be used are already under that licence. I - personally - would like to avoid GPL, rather have LGPL, as to not hinder the acceptance of the project with people who need to incororate it into commercial products.

-Martin

Asko Kauppi wrote:

Because of the modular structure, we'll end up having parts that are GPL, or
any other Open Source license for that matter... What part would you think
the Zlib covers?

-ak


-----Original Message-----
From: Björn De Meyer [[hidden email]]
Sent: 11. helmikuuta 2003 2:48
To: Multiple recipients of list
Subject: [LuaCheia] New sourceforge project.


I decided to start a new Sourceforge project because of the space restrictions on the wiki, mentioned in another mail. I would like to ask of those of you who are interested in the project to register a Sourceforge username if you don't have one already, and mail it to me, so I can add you to the project, when it gets approved. Thank you.

FYI: I chose the zlib license as this is really the least common denominator I could think of. I hope
this is acceptable.




Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re[2]: FW: [LuaCheia] licening [was: New sourceforge project.9

Gunnar Zötl
I'm following this lua-cheia thing with quite a bit of interest. I am
not actually interested in something like that myself, but nonetheless
it is an interesting project.

I would like to suggest an entirely modular solution. Not just
everything in modules, but also a modular distribution, maybe similar
to the CPAN. Thus there would be a core distribution with some general
interest modules like for example networking, and the other modules
could be added to the distribution, maybe even with the aid of a
little program. Plus, for such a scheme, you would also need some sort
of dependency management between the modules.

This way you would also get around the license problem. The core
lua-cheia might be distributed under the lua license or something
similar. The additional modules can be under whatever license the
author chooses, without compromising lua-cheia.

One other thing I wanted to suggest is to use a mechanism for the
dynamic loadable exensions that can also be used with the standard lua
distribution. Or, in other words, the interpreter should not need to
be patched more than adding another library to it in order to use
dynamic loadable extensions. I don't know about GluaX, but loadlib
seems to fit that bill.

just my 3c,

Gunnar


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: FW: [LuaCheia] licening [was: New sourceforge project.9

Martin Spernau
I agre with you on modularity.
One of my goals is to have a distribution that can be as small and specialized or as full and complete as I choose. One example would be using the same core for GUI apps on the one side and 'faceless' server apps on the other, both using the same Databse, XML support etc. but being varied in size etc.

A dependancy checking system woul certainly be very nice for this. (Good documentation of the various modules is a big step in that direction)

On the other hand I would very strongly suggest that we try and keep the core as simple as possible as too not hinder this prolect by bogging it down with details. We need to try and find a good compromize between flexibility and simolicity.

-Martin

Gunnar Zötl wrote:

I'm following this lua-cheia thing with quite a bit of interest. I am
not actually interested in something like that myself, but nonetheless
it is an interesting project.

I would like to suggest an entirely modular solution. Not just
everything in modules, but also a modular distribution, maybe similar
to the CPAN. Thus there would be a core distribution with some general
interest modules like for example networking, and the other modules
could be added to the distribution, maybe even with the aid of a
little program. Plus, for such a scheme, you would also need some sort
of dependency management between the modules.

This way you would also get around the license problem. The core
lua-cheia might be distributed under the lua license or something
similar. The additional modules can be under whatever license the
author chooses, without compromising lua-cheia.

One other thing I wanted to suggest is to use a mechanism for the
dynamic loadable exensions that can also be used with the standard lua
distribution. Or, in other words, the interpreter should not need to
be patched more than adding another library to it in order to use
dynamic loadable extensions. I don't know about GluaX, but loadlib
seems to fit that bill.

just my 3c,

Gunnar




Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: FW: [LuaCheia] licening [was: New sourceforge project.9

Asko Kauppi-2
In reply to this post by Martin Spernau
Lua license or the X11 (which Lua 5.0 uses) get my vote.

Zlib is seldom used and therefore will make the thing look more exotic,
exactly what we're striving against.

-ak


-----Original Message-----
From: Martin Spernau [[hidden email]]
Sent: 11. helmikuuta 2003 11:44
To: Multiple recipients of list
Subject: Re: FW: [LuaCheia] licening [was: New sourceforge project.9


I would suggest the Lua-license, as many of the modules to be used are 
already under that licence.
I - personally - would like to avoid GPL, rather have LGPL, as to not 
hinder the acceptance of the project with people who need to incororate 
it into commercial products.

-Martin

Asko Kauppi wrote:

>Because of the modular structure, we'll end up having parts that are GPL,
or
>any other Open Source license for that matter... What part would you think
>the Zlib covers?
>
>-ak
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Björn De Meyer [[hidden email]]
>Sent: 11. helmikuuta 2003 2:48
>To: Multiple recipients of list
>Subject: [LuaCheia] New sourceforge project.
>
>
>I decided to start a new Sourceforge project 
>because of the space restrictions on the wiki, 
>mentioned in another mail. I would like to ask 
>of those of you who are interested in the project 
>to register a Sourceforge username if you don't 
>have one already, and mail it to me, so I can add 
>you to the project, when it gets approved. Thank you.
>
>FYI: I chose the zlib license as this is really the 
>least common denominator I could think of. I hope
>this is acceptable.
>
>
>  
>
###########################################
This message has been scanned by F-Secure Anti-Virus for Microsoft Exchange.


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: FW: [LuaCheia] licening [was: New sourceforge project.9

Björn De Meyer
In reply to this post by Martin Spernau
Martin Spernau wrote:
> 
> I would suggest the Lua-license, as many of the modules to be used are
> already under that licence.
> I - personally - would like to avoid GPL, rather have LGPL, as to not
> hinder the acceptance of the project with people who need to incororate
> it into commercial products.
> 
> -Martin

Well, if it's really a problem to use zlib, the the 
Lua license will probably be fine. As for the libraries to
incorporate, it's indeed probably the best to use
LGPL libraries, to aviod any needless conflicts later on.


-- 
"No one knows true heroes, for they speak not of their greatness." -- 
Daniel Remar.
Björn De Meyer 
[hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: FW: [LuaCheia] licening [was: New sourceforge project.9

Björn De Meyer
In reply to this post by Martin Spernau
Martin Spernau wrote:
> 
> I agre with you on modularity.
> One of my goals is to have a distribution that can be as small and
> specialized or as full and complete as I choose.
> One example would be using the same core for GUI apps on the one side
> and 'faceless' server apps on the other, both using the same Databse,
> XML support etc. but being varied in size etc.
> 
> A dependancy checking system woul certainly be very nice for this. (Good
> documentation of the various modules is a big step in that direction)
> 
> On the other hand I would very strongly suggest that we try and keep the
> core as simple as possible as too not hinder this prolect by bogging it
> down with details. We need to try and find a good compromize between
> flexibility and simolicity.
> 
> -Martin
> 

Well, my idea is to have a tree-layer system.
In the core layer, there is the base Lua interpreter.
We only add to that one library, let's call it the 
LuaCheia library. This LuaCheia library is the second layer. 
It decides at runtime which modules are available, 
and loads dynamically them as needed. The third layer 
are the modules, which are (automatically generated?)
wrappers that take care of the C/C++ to Lua interfacing.
These modules can either extend Lua bythemselves, or further 
load dynamic libraries and extend them. How does that sound?


-- 
"No one knows true heroes, for they speak not of their greatness." -- 
Daniel Remar.
Björn De Meyer 
[hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: FW: [LuaCheia] licening [was: New sourceforge project.9

Martin Spernau
From: "Björn De Meyer" <[hidden email]>
> Well, my idea is to have a tree-layer system.
> In the core layer, there is the base Lua interpreter.
> We only add to that one library, let's call it the
> LuaCheia library. This LuaCheia library is the second layer.
> It decides at runtime which modules are available,
> and loads dynamically them as needed. The third layer
> are the modules, which are (automatically generated?)
> wrappers that take care of the C/C++ to Lua interfacing.
> These modules can either extend Lua bythemselves, or further
> load dynamic libraries and extend them. How does that sound?

I think it sounds good!

So this second layer might actually be a script layer?
If the second layer was resonably easy to customize, one could build custom
distributions out of the core binaries and the modules, bypassing all the
'sugar' of deopendency checking etc. if one so wishes.

-Martin


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: FW: [LuaCheia] licening [was: New sourceforge project.9

Thatcher Ulrich
In reply to this post by Björn De Meyer
On Feb 11, 2003 at 10:48 +0100, Bj?rn De Meyer wrote:
> Martin Spernau wrote:
> > 
> > I would suggest the Lua-license, as many of the modules to be used
> > are already under that licence.  I - personally - would like to
> > avoid GPL, rather have LGPL, as to not hinder the acceptance of
> > the project with people who need to incororate it into commercial
> > products.
> 
> Well, if it's really a problem to use zlib, the the 
> Lua license will probably be fine. As for the libraries to
> incorporate, it's indeed probably the best to use
> LGPL libraries, to aviod any needless conflicts later on.

FYI, SDL is under the LGPL, so I imagine that extends to the "cleaned
headers" I made, using their headers, for use with tolua.

I think it's probably good for LuaCheia to have a default license, but
allow some license diversity among modules; otherwise we'll constantly
be wrestling with issues like this.  There's nothing in the
contemplated use of LuaCheia that would prevent having some LGPL'd or
GPL sub-parts, or that would cause the rest of the project to be
infected, AFAIK.

-- 
Thatcher Ulrich
http://tulrich.com

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: FW: [LuaCheia] licening [was: New sourceforge project.9

Björn De Meyer
In reply to this post by Martin Spernau
Martin Spernau wrote:
> I think it sounds good!
> 
> So this second layer might actually be a script layer?
> If the second layer was resonably easy to customize, one could build custom
> distributions out of the core binaries and the modules, bypassing all the
> 'sugar' of deopendency checking etc. if one so wishes.

Well, yes, the LuaCheia library would probably be written in C or C++,
but it would extensively use scripts to do it's job. With
some basic portable file system handling (for searching directories
for modules, for instance), a loadbinarymodule() and a
loadluamodule() this should be possible. 


-- 
"No one knows true heroes, for they speak not of their greatness." -- 
Daniel Remar.
Björn De Meyer 
[hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: FW: [LuaCheia] licening [was: New sourceforge project.9

Martin Spernau
In reply to this post by Björn De Meyer
From: "Björn De Meyer" <[hidden email]>
> Well, if it's really a problem to use zlib, the the
> Lua license will probably be fine.

The zlib would not be a problem for me, sorry if I sounded that way.
But as Thatcher said, we should try to avoid GPL (as it is 'viral'), and
rather go for LGPL with modules included in LuaCheia.
But that also only goes for things directly 'included' in the distribution.
I don't see a real problem using GPL Modules with LuaCheia if one so wishes.

-Martin