License

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
28 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

License

Enrico Colombini
What license would you consider appropriate for a Lua add-on?

I'd like to use a simple 'out-of-the-shelf' license as I can't write
legalese, but I have no experience outside GPL (which is too restrictive in
this case). Probably even LGPL would be a nuisance.

Basically, I want to keep the copyright and allow free distribution, usage
and modification (just like Lua).

  .Erix.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: License

Erik Hougaard
----- Original Message -----
> Basically, I want to keep the copyright and allow free distribution, usage
> and modification (just like Lua).

Well why not use the Lua license ?

/E


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: License

John Belmonte-2
In reply to this post by Enrico Colombini
Enrico Colombini wrote:

> I'd like to use a simple 'out-of-the-shelf' license
>
> Basically, I want to keep the copyright and allow free
> distribution, usage and modification (just like Lua).

See http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html.  It sounds like you want
"revised BSD" or equivalent.

-John



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: License

Nick Trout-4
In reply to this post by Enrico Colombini
> I'd like to use a simple 'out-of-the-shelf' license
>
> Basically, I want to keep the copyright and allow free
> distribution, usage and modification (just like Lua).

>>See http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html.  It sounds like you
want
"revised BSD" or equivalent.

Ahh beat me to it! I've put a new page on wiki:
http://lua-users.org/wiki/OtherLicenses

There was a discussion before Xmas so you may want to look at Novembers
Lua-l archive as well.

Regards,
Nick


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: License

Luiz Henrique de Figueiredo
>> I'd like to use a simple 'out-of-the-shelf' license
>>
>> Basically, I want to keep the copyright and allow free
>> distribution, usage and modification (just like Lua).
>
>See http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html.  It sounds like you want
>"revised BSD" or equivalent.

See also http://opensource.org/licenses/index.html . Closest to the Lua license
are the (revised) BSD license and the zlib/libpng license.
--lhf

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: License

John D. Ramsdell-3
Luiz Henrique de Figueiredo <[hidden email]> writes:

> >> I'd like to use a simple 'out-of-the-shelf' license

I encourage you to carefully think about what you want, and then study
all the open source licenses at

http://opensource.org/licenses/index.html

If one of those licenses fits your needs, use it.  Many people are
familiar with the set of licenses on opensource.org, so if you use one
of them, people will not need to study your license carefully to
figure out the terms of usage.

John



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: License

Luiz Henrique de Figueiredo
In reply to this post by Enrico Colombini
>http://opensource.org/licenses/index.html
>
>If one of those licenses fits your needs, use it.  Many people are
>familiar with the set of licenses on opensource.org, so if you use one
>of them, people will not need to study your license carefully to
>figure out the terms of usage.

We're considering changing the Lua license to one of these, although we have
received word from the OSI that the current Lua license would be approved
as an OSI license if we wish.

We'll probably decide this when we release the next version of Lua (and so,
not so terribly soon :-).
--lhf

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: License

Jim Mathies-2
I'd say getting approval for a "Lua License" would help promote Lua
in some small way. Also, on a side note, I've adopted the current 
Lua License for some software I've free sourced. imho, an official OSI 
Lua license would be cool. :)

Regards,
Jim


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Luiz Henrique de Figueiredo" <[hidden email]>
To: "Multiple recipients of list" <[hidden email]>
Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 6:26 AM
Subject: Re: License


| >http://opensource.org/licenses/index.html
| >
| >If one of those licenses fits your needs, use it.  Many people are
| >familiar with the set of licenses on opensource.org, so if you use one
| >of them, people will not need to study your license carefully to
| >figure out the terms of usage.
| 
| We're considering changing the Lua license to one of these, although we have
| received word from the OSI that the current Lua license would be approved
| as an OSI license if we wish.
| 
| We'll probably decide this when we release the next version of Lua (and so,
| not so terribly soon :-).
| --lhf
| 
| 


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: License

Enrico Colombini
In reply to this post by Luiz Henrique de Figueiredo
Thanks to all for the pointers to free licenses. I'll now clone myself and
send the duplicate to law school first and then to read them all...

At first glance, the zlib license is probably what I'll use: it's clean and
minimalist. It would be somewhat ridicolous to have a license larger than
the code it applies to.

  Enrico

(P.S. Sorry for the wrong signature in my previous msg)


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: License

Andy Tai-2
In reply to this post by Luiz Henrique de Figueiredo
Hopefully you will adapt the X11 (MIT) license or the
BSD license without the adverting clause as the
license for Lua.  Please do not use the Apache license
because that is not GPL compatible and will prevent
the use of Lua with GPLed programs. 

Use of the existing licenses should be preferable. 
Creating "one more license" instead of using the
"standard" ones just create more confusion and is not
good for the health of the Free Software (open source)
movement, or for the field/profession of software in
general (for these who do not care about Free
Software/Open Source :-( )

--- Luiz Henrique de Figueiredo
<[hidden email]> wrote:
> >http://opensource.org/licenses/index.html
> >
> >If one of those licenses fits your needs, use it. 
> Many people are
> >familiar with the set of licenses on
> opensource.org, so if you use one
> >of them, people will not need to study your license
> carefully to
> >figure out the terms of usage.
> 
> We're considering changing the Lua license to one of
> these, although we have
> received word from the OSI that the current Lua
> license would be approved
> as an OSI license if we wish.
> 
> We'll probably decide this when we release the next
> version of Lua (and so,
> not so terribly soon :-).
> --lhf


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail!
http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: License

Jim Mathies-2
I took a look at this MIT license. One draw back of this license (and it seems all the 
free-software licenses on opensource.org) is the lack of protection for
the Lua api specification. Without 

/*  - Altered source versions must be plainly marked as such, and must not be    *
/*    misrepresented as being the original software.                             *

The Lua api could potentially be corrupted by an adaptation of Lua. I really like
the Lua license as it is, and I don't see a complimentary license on opensource.org.

Regards,
Jim

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Andy Tai" <[hidden email]>
To: "Multiple recipients of list" <[hidden email]>
Cc: <[hidden email]>
Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 2:25 PM
Subject: Re: License


| Hopefully you will adapt the X11 (MIT) license or the
| BSD license without the adverting clause as the
| license for Lua.  Please do not use the Apache license
| because that is not GPL compatible and will prevent
| the use of Lua with GPLed programs. 
| 
| Use of the existing licenses should be preferable. 
| Creating "one more license" instead of using the
| "standard" ones just create more confusion and is not
| good for the health of the Free Software (open source)
| movement, or for the field/profession of software in
| general (for these who do not care about Free
| Software/Open Source :-( )
| 
| --- Luiz Henrique de Figueiredo
| <[hidden email]> wrote:
| > >http://opensource.org/licenses/index.html
| > >
| > >If one of those licenses fits your needs, use it. 
| > Many people are
| > >familiar with the set of licenses on
| > opensource.org, so if you use one
| > >of them, people will not need to study your license
| > carefully to
| > >figure out the terms of usage.
| > 
| > We're considering changing the Lua license to one of
| > these, although we have
| > received word from the OSI that the current Lua
| > license would be approved
| > as an OSI license if we wish.
| > 
| > We'll probably decide this when we release the next
| > version of Lua (and so,
| > not so terribly soon :-).
| > --lhf
| 
| 
| __________________________________________________
| Do You Yahoo!?
| Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail!
| http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/
| 
| 


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: License

Luiz Henrique de Figueiredo
In reply to this post by Enrico Colombini
>I took a look at this MIT license. One draw back of this license (and it seems all the 
>free-software licenses on opensource.org) is the lack of protection for
>the Lua api specification. Without 
>
>/*  - Altered source versions must be plainly marked as such, and must not be    *
>/*    misrepresented as being the original software.                             *
>
>The Lua api could potentially be corrupted by an adaptation of Lua. I really like
>the Lua license as it is, and I don't see a complimentary license on opensource.org.

Try the zlib license: http://www.opensource.org/licenses/zlib-license.html
As far as I can tell, this and others come from the classical regexp package
by Henry Spencer, reproduced below.

 Copyright (c) 1986, 1993, 1995 by University of Toronto.
 Written by Henry Spencer.  Not derived from licensed software.

 Permission is granted to anyone to use this software for any
 purpose on any computer system, and to redistribute it in any way,
 subject to the following restrictions:

 1. The author is not responsible for the consequences of use of
	 this software, no matter how awful, even if they arise
	 from defects in it.

 2. The origin of this software must not be misrepresented, either
	 by explicit claim or by omission.

 3. Altered versions must be plainly marked as such, and must not
	 be misrepresented (by explicit claim or omission) as being
	 the original software.

 4. This notice must not be removed or altered.

I agree that we need something like #3 above.
--lhf

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: License

Jim Mathies-2
your right, that works. although i kinda like the acknowledgment line. it adds a
little character. :)


/*    claim that you wrote the original software. If you use this software in a  *
/*    product, an acknowledgment in the product documentation would be greatly   *
/*    appreciated (but it is not required).                                      *


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Luiz Henrique de Figueiredo" <[hidden email]>
To: "Multiple recipients of list" <[hidden email]>
Sent: Sunday, January 20, 2002 5:40 PM
Subject: Re: License


| >I took a look at this MIT license. One draw back of this license (and it seems all the 
| >free-software licenses on opensource.org) is the lack of protection for
| >the Lua api specification. Without 
| >
| >/*  - Altered source versions must be plainly marked as such, and must not be    *
| >/*    misrepresented as being the original software.                             *
| >
| >The Lua api could potentially be corrupted by an adaptation of Lua. I really like
| >the Lua license as it is, and I don't see a complimentary license on opensource.org.
| 
| Try the zlib license: http://www.opensource.org/licenses/zlib-license.html
| As far as I can tell, this and others come from the classical regexp package
| by Henry Spencer, reproduced below.
| 
|  Copyright (c) 1986, 1993, 1995 by University of Toronto.
|  Written by Henry Spencer.  Not derived from licensed software.
| 
|  Permission is granted to anyone to use this software for any
|  purpose on any computer system, and to redistribute it in any way,
|  subject to the following restrictions:
| 
|  1. The author is not responsible for the consequences of use of
| this software, no matter how awful, even if they arise
| from defects in it.
| 
|  2. The origin of this software must not be misrepresented, either
| by explicit claim or by omission.
| 
|  3. Altered versions must be plainly marked as such, and must not
| be misrepresented (by explicit claim or omission) as being
| the original software.
| 
|  4. This notice must not be removed or altered.
| 
| I agree that we need something like #3 above.
| --lhf
| 
| 


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: License

Thatcher Ulrich
IMHO, the license of an open-source package is not the place to convey
your character.  Convey your character in great code and
documentation!  But use a boring standard license, because it makes it
that much easier for non-lawyers to reuse your code.

Not that there's anything particularly wrong with the Lua license, but
just as a general principle.

On Jan 20, 2002 at 09:53 -0600, [hidden email] wrote:
> your right, that works. although i kinda like the acknowledgment
> line. it adds a little character. :)
> 
> 
> /*    claim that you wrote the original software. If you use this software in a  *
> /*    product, an acknowledgment in the product documentation would be greatly   *
> /*    appreciated (but it is not required).                                      *
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Luiz Henrique de Figueiredo" <[hidden email]>
> To: "Multiple recipients of list" <[hidden email]>
> Sent: Sunday, January 20, 2002 5:40 PM
> Subject: Re: License
> 
> 
> | >I took a look at this MIT license. One draw back of this license (and it seems all the 
> | >free-software licenses on opensource.org) is the lack of protection for
> | >the Lua api specification. Without 
> | >
> | >/*  - Altered source versions must be plainly marked as such, and must not be    *
> | >/*    misrepresented as being the original software.                             *
> | >
> | >The Lua api could potentially be corrupted by an adaptation of Lua. I really like
> | >the Lua license as it is, and I don't see a complimentary license on opensource.org.
> | 
> | Try the zlib license: http://www.opensource.org/licenses/zlib-license.html
> | As far as I can tell, this and others come from the classical regexp package
> | by Henry Spencer, reproduced below.
> | 
> |  Copyright (c) 1986, 1993, 1995 by University of Toronto.
> |  Written by Henry Spencer.  Not derived from licensed software.
> | 
> |  Permission is granted to anyone to use this software for any
> |  purpose on any computer system, and to redistribute it in any way,
> |  subject to the following restrictions:
> | 
> |  1. The author is not responsible for the consequences of use of
> | this software, no matter how awful, even if they arise
> | from defects in it.
> | 
> |  2. The origin of this software must not be misrepresented, either
> | by explicit claim or by omission.
> | 
> |  3. Altered versions must be plainly marked as such, and must not
> | be misrepresented (by explicit claim or omission) as being
> | the original software.
> | 
> |  4. This notice must not be removed or altered.
> | 
> | I agree that we need something like #3 above.
> | --lhf
> | 
> | 

-- 
Thatcher Ulrich <[hidden email]>
http://tulrich.com

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: License

John D. Ramsdell-3
In reply to this post by John D. Ramsdell-3
In my opinion, it would be best to select between the X11/Xfree86
license, the modified BSD license, or the GNU Lesser General Public
License.

John

[hidden email] (John D. Ramsdell) writes:

> Luiz Henrique de Figueiredo <[hidden email]> writes:
> 
> > >> I'd like to use a simple 'out-of-the-shelf' license
> 
> I encourage you to carefully think about what you want, and then study
> all the open source licenses at
> 
> http://opensource.org/licenses/index.html
> 
> If one of those licenses fits your needs, use it.  Many people are
> familiar with the set of licenses on opensource.org, so if you use one
> of them, people will not need to study your license carefully to
> figure out the terms of usage.
> 
> John
> 
> 

rje
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: License

rje
On Mon, Feb 18, 2002 at 07:57:00AM -0500, John D. Ramsdell top-posted:
> In my opinion, it would be best to select between the X11/Xfree86
> license, the modified BSD license, or the GNU Lesser General Public
> License.

I'd avoid anything to do with the GPL or LGPL like the plague, as it only
provides freedom for end users, not people who wish to create programs for
end users.  BSD or MIT, in my opinion, seems a much better choice, but then
again, I don't see anything wrong with the current license.

-- 
Rob Kendrick - http://www.digital-scurf.org/
You will pioneer the first Martian colony.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: License

Thatcher Ulrich
On Feb 18, 2002 at 02:53 +0000, Rob Kendrick wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 18, 2002 at 07:57:00AM -0500, John D. Ramsdell top-posted:
> > In my opinion, it would be best to select between the X11/Xfree86
> > license, the modified BSD license, or the GNU Lesser General Public
> > License.
> 
> I'd avoid anything to do with the GPL or LGPL like the plague, as it only
> provides freedom for end users, not people who wish to create programs for
> end users.  BSD or MIT, in my opinion, seems a much better choice,

I agree: The MIT or BSD licenses are ideal.  MIT is a good fit for Lua
because it seems to be the shortest and simplest license at
http://opensource.org/licenses/index.html

http://opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.html

> but then
> again, I don't see anything wrong with the current license.

There's nothing wrong with it, except that it's unique, so it's a
little more legalese for users to read and interpret.

-- 
Thatcher Ulrich <[hidden email]>
http://tulrich.com

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: License

Reuben Thomas
Hear hear. MIT would be a good way to go. BSD has the single advantage
that it's more well-known (so it's a license in 3 letters). Also, I
understand that the *current* version of the BSD license is the same as
the MIT license (they deleted the clause about advertising).

-- 
http://sc3d.org/rrt/ | competent, a.  underpromoted


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: License

Philippe Lhoste
In reply to this post by Nick Trout-4
> > > In my opinion, it would be best to select between the X11/Xfree86
> > > license, the modified BSD license, or the GNU Lesser General Public
> > > License.
> > 
> > I'd avoid anything to do with the GPL or LGPL like the plague, as it
only
> > provides freedom for end users, not people who wish to create programs
for
> > end users. BSD or MIT, in my opinion, seems a much better choice,

I agree!

> I agree: The MIT or BSD licenses are ideal. MIT is a good fit for Lua
> because it seems to be the shortest and simplest license at
> http://opensource.org/licenses/index.html

Personally, I chose the zlib/libpng licence, because it uses even less
legalese terms (the "Software"), and it doesn't shout at the user (THE SOFTWARE IS
PROVIDED "AS IS"...).
It can be confusing to use a licence bearing the name of another software
though. But it is a minor annoyance.
All this is a matter of taste. I believe the best standard licence is the
one fitting the most closely the Lua licence.
And of course, Lua must keep additional clauses, like "you can change the
syntax, but if you do, don't call it Lua"... (If I understand correctly the
current licence.)

Regards.

-- 
--=#=--=#=--=#=--=#=--=#=--=#=--=#=--=#=--=#=--
Philippe Lhoste (Paris -- France)
Professional programmer and amateur artist
http://jove.prohosting.com/~philho/
--=#=--=#=--=#=--=#=--=#=--=#=--=#=--=#=--=#=--

GMX - Die Kommunikationsplattform im Internet.
http://www.gmx.net


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: License

John D. Ramsdell-3
Philippe Lhoste <[hidden email]> writes:

> And of course, Lua must keep additional clauses, like "you can change the
> syntax, but if you do, don't call it Lua"... (If I understand correctly the
> current licence.)

This is not part of a BSD, MIT X11, or LGPL license.  The clause is
non-standard.  A license that adds the clause is non-standard.
Avoiding this kind of variation is the point of adopting a standard
license.

John

12