License

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

Re: License

Reuben Thomas
> 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.

Indeed; it doesn't seem to be a problem for other systems, so I'd've
thought it could be dropped from the Lua license.

-- 
http://sc3d.org/rrt/ | aphorism, n.  a wise lie


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: License

John D. Ramsdell-3
Reuben Thomas <[hidden email]> writes:

> Indeed; it doesn't seem to be a problem for other systems, so I'd've
> thought it could be dropped from the Lua license.

I agree with Reuben.  As near as I can tell, the other licenses used
for open source scripting don't seem to include a no language change
clause.

On the other hand, I notice that the zlib/libpng license has the clause:

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

Maybe this clause, and therefore this license is better for Lua.  It
seems to handle the issue of modifications to the Lua language.

John


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: License

Reuben Thomas
>   2.  Altered source versions must be plainly marked as such, and must
>   not be misrepresented as being the original software.
>
> Maybe this clause, and therefore this license is better for Lua.  It
> seems to handle the issue of modifications to the Lua language.

This indeed seems like a good thing, and this license is after all used
for more than zlib and libpng: bzip2 uses a similar license.

-- 
http://sc3d.org/rrt/ | computation, n.  automated pedantry


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: License

Luiz Henrique de Figueiredo
In reply to this post by Nick Trout-4
>On the other hand, I notice that the zlib/libpng license has the clause:
>
>  2.  Altered source versions must be plainly marked as such, and must
>  not be misrepresented as being the original software.

So does the Lua license!
"If you change the syntax or the semantics, don't call it Lua" is not in the
license, it's an interpretation (as explained in the FAQ).

The zlib/libpng is essentially the same as the Lua license.
As far as I can tell, they all come from Henry Spencer's rexexp package in
the 1980's. See http://anso.virtualave.net/RegExpE/tregexpr_disclaimer.htm .
--lhf

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: License

John Passaniti-4
In reply to this post by John D. Ramsdell-3
> I agree with Reuben.  As near as I can tell, the
> other licenses used for open source scripting 
> don't seem to include a no language change clause.

Can someone please explain to me why this is even an issue?

When I was first evaluating Lua as the scripting language for a product
I was working on, I read the license.  It took a minute.  It was clearly
written and didn't require me to go to some archive of standard licenses
where I must wade through endless text-- and often text that is really
disguised essays on free and open source software.

I'm all for standards where there is a benefit that can be objectively
measured.  In the case of the Lua license, I see no benefit in adopting
someone else's license.  Before that is done, I'd like those who see the
need for a "standard" license to state the objective benefits.



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: License

Thatcher Ulrich
On Feb 19, 2002 at 01:00 -0500, John Passaniti wrote:
> > I agree with Reuben.  As near as I can tell, the
> > other licenses used for open source scripting 
> > don't seem to include a no language change clause.
> 
> Can someone please explain to me why this is even an issue?
> 
> When I was first evaluating Lua as the scripting language for a product
> I was working on, I read the license.  It took a minute.  It was clearly
> written and didn't require me to go to some archive of standard licenses
> where I must wade through endless text-- and often text that is really
> disguised essays on free and open source software.
> 
> I'm all for standards where there is a benefit that can be objectively
> measured.  In the case of the Lua license, I see no benefit in adopting
> someone else's license.  Before that is done, I'd like those who see the
> need for a "standard" license to state the objective benefits.

This is a fair question.

A standard license is good because, while licenses are commonly
evaluated by programmers, they are enforced and governed by lawyers.
There's nothing particularly wrong with the Lua license from a
programmer's perspective; personally when I read it I think it's
perfect.  However, I am not a lawyer, nor do I want to be, so I'm not
competent to *definitively* say what it means legally.

The standard licenses on the other hand, have undergone a lot of
scrutiny by lawyers and non-lawyers alike.  For the average Lua user
like you or me, this is not such a big deal, but for people who
package open-source software (e.g. Linux distributions), or people who
want to use many open-source packages in a project, standard licenses
are much more helpful, because they can leverage their existing
knowledge and policies.  The proliferation of slightly-different
licenses can be a big problem for distros, since the nature of
legalese is that it can have unintuitive and unintended meanings, even
when a single word is changed.  Meanwhile authoritative legal advice
is expensive, while the consequences of a mistake can be even more
expensive.

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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: License

Stephen Adam
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Thatcher Ulrich" <[hidden email]>
To: "Multiple recipients of list" <[hidden email]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2002 5:33 AM
Subject: Re: License


> There's nothing particularly wrong with the Lua license from a
> programmer's perspective; personally when I read it I think it's
> perfect.  However, I am not a lawyer, nor do I want to be, so I'm not
> competent to *definitively* say what it means legally.

    That's an interesting comment on the legal system, don't you 
think?  Everyone knows what it means except lawyers, because 
it isn't written in *their* language.  Too bad they don't use our 
language.  Perhaps when you hire a lawyer, you're really only 
hiring a translator. :))



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: License

John D. Ramsdell-3
In reply to this post by Luiz Henrique de Figueiredo
Luiz Henrique de Figueiredo <[hidden email]> writes:

> The zlib/libpng is essentially the same as the Lua license.
> As far as I can tell, they all come from Henry Spencer's rexexp package in
> the 1980's. See http://anso.virtualave.net/RegExpE/tregexpr_disclaimer.htm .

So the zlib/libpng license is the right one for Lua?

John


12