Re: Licensing Questions

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

Re: Licensing Questions

kaishaku13
I just have to say that it's a little sad how much
conversation licensing can generate relative to the
actual technical questions or productive work.

Not like it's the first license related tirade either...

A bad license IS probably the worst thing that could
happen to Lua, but can you just relax and have some faith.
The day Lua goes GPL is the day I start breaking the law
or start writing a replacement, very inconvenient. I suppose
I could just use the older version and that license and
feign knowledge of any updated license if I had to. Just
a little tired of the gpl monkeys... get off my back! ;p

P.S. I don't want to hear why you think GPL is great.


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Licensing Questions

Luiz Henrique de Figueiredo
>A bad license IS probably the worst thing that could
>happen to Lua, but can you just relax and have some faith.
>The day Lua goes GPL is the day I start breaking the law
>or start writing a replacement, very inconvenient.

No one is proposing that Lua goes GPL, neither the team nor the others.
We're all just concerned to ensure that Lua is as free as possible and that
it can be used with GPL software.

But I agree with you here:

>I just have to say that it's a little sad how much
>conversation licensing can generate relative to the
>actual technical questions or productive work.

Using a standard licence, even if it does not spell things out exactly as we
think it should, would give us all more time to focus on technical questions.
After all, we the team are neither native English speakers not lawyers, and
the subtle details of license texts are too much for us. I have the impression
that this is also true for many people here and everywhere.

--lhf

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Licensing Questions

Björn De Meyer
Luiz Henrique de Figueiredo wrote:
> Using a standard licence, even if it does not spell things out exactly as we
> think it should, would give us all more time to focus on technical questions.

I agree with that. AFAIK, the current lua license is almost the same as 
the zlib license. Why not go for the classic, GPL-compatible
zlib license? 


-- 
"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: Licensing.. ZLib

jame
Hey, that is pretty darn close, and it's already approved.
The Lua team might consider adopting this one.

Regards,
Jim

http://www.opensource.org/licenses/zlib-license.html


ZLIB:
---------------------------------
The zlib/libpng License
Copyright (c) <year> <copyright holders>

This software is provided 'as-is', without any express or implied warranty.
In no event will the authors be held liable for any damages arising from the
use of this software.

Permission is granted to anyone to use this software for any purpose,
including commercial applications, and to alter it and redistribute it
freely, subject to the following restrictions:

1. The origin of this software must not be misrepresented; you must not
claim that you wrote the original software. If you use this software in a
product, an acknowledgment in the product documentation would be appreciated
but is not required.

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

3. This notice may not be removed or altered from any source distribution.
---------------------------------


LUA:
---------------------------------
The Lua License
Copyright © 1994-2000 TeCGraf, PUC-Rio. All rights reserved.

Permission is hereby granted, without written agreement and without license
or royalty fees, to use, copy, modify, translate, and distribute this
software and its documentation (hereby called the "package") for any
purpose, including commercial applications, subject to the following
conditions:

1. The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall appear in all
copies or substantial portions of this package.

2. The origin of this package must not be misrepresented; you must not claim
that you wrote the original package. If you use this package in a product,
an acknowledgment in the product documentation would be greatly appreciated
(but it is not required).

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

The authors specifically disclaim any warranties, including, but not limited
to, the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular
purpose. The package provided hereunder is on an "as is" basis, and the
authors have no obligation to provide maintenance, support, updates,
enhancements, or modifications. In no event shall TeCGraf, PUC-Rio, or the
authors be held liable to any party for direct, indirect, special,
incidental, or consequential damages arising out of the use of this package
and its documentation.
---------------------------------





----- Original Message -----
From: "Björn De Meyer" <[hidden email]>
To: "Multiple recipients of list" <[hidden email]>
Sent: Saturday, May 18, 2002 10:38 AM
Subject: Re: Licensing Questions


Luiz Henrique de Figueiredo wrote:
> Using a standard licence, even if it does not spell things out exactly as
we
> think it should, would give us all more time to focus on technical
questions.

I agree with that. AFAIK, the current lua license is almost the same as
the zlib license. Why not go for the classic, GPL-compatible
zlib license?




Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Licensing.. ZLib

Luiz Henrique de Figueiredo
>http://www.opensource.org/licenses/zlib-license.html

>Hey, that is pretty darn close, and it's already approved.
>The Lua team might consider adopting this one.

Yes, it's pretty close. They both come form the original Henry Spencer license,
as far as I can tell.

I find some points a little obscure:

>Copyright (c) <year> <copyright holders>
>
>This software is provided 'as-is', without any express or implied warranty.
>In no event will the authors be held liable for any damages arising from the
>use of this software.

Just "the authors"? We'd like "the authors and the copyright holders",
which in our case are different.

>Permission is granted to anyone to use this software for any purpose,
>including commercial applications, and to alter it and redistribute it
>freely, subject to the following restrictions:

"redistribute it freely": I find this ambiguous: Does this mean that you're
allowed it redistribute it freely (if you want to) or that if you redistribute
it then it must be free?

The rest is almost identical to Lua's license.

Perhaps someone can clarify the 2 points above, and then make a case for the
zlib license.
--lhf

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Licensing.. ZLib

jame
----- Original Message -----
From: "Luiz Henrique de Figueiredo" <[hidden email]>
To: "Multiple recipients of list" <[hidden email]>
Sent: Sunday, May 19, 2002 7:57 PM
Subject: Re: Licensing.. ZLib


> >http://www.opensource.org/licenses/zlib-license.html
>
> >Hey, that is pretty darn close, and it's already approved.
> >The Lua team might consider adopting this one.
>
> Yes, it's pretty close. They both come form the original Henry Spencer
license,
> as far as I can tell.
>
> I find some points a little obscure:
>
> >Copyright (c) <year> <copyright holders>
> >
> >This software is provided 'as-is', without any express or implied
warranty.
> >In no event will the authors be held liable for any damages arising from
the
> >use of this software.
>
> Just "the authors"? We'd like "the authors and the copyright holders",
> which in our case are different.

Your right this is probably incompatible. Since TeCGraf, PUC-Rio has the
copyright, a seperate entity from the authors, this might not be perfect for
your situation. This would be a good question for a lawyer. I think we could
bring this up to the opensource licensing guys.. as your one contention
with this license. They would be able to clarify the situation. If this was
a
valid issue, i'm sure they would then be willing to approve the Lua license
as a variant of the zlib/png license.

>
> >Permission is granted to anyone to use this software for any purpose,
> >including commercial applications, and to alter it and redistribute it
> >freely, subject to the following restrictions:
>
> "redistribute it freely": I find this ambiguous: Does this mean that
you're
> allowed it redistribute it freely (if you want to) or that if you
redistribute
> it then it must be free?

I'm pretty sure this means you are free to redistribute it, not that
you must distribute it freely. "Permission is granted.." (to) "redistribute
it freely". This is a permission clause, not a restriction clause.
Again, a good question for the lawyers.

Luiz, if you guys would like, i'd be happy to submit these
issues to the licensing board at http://www.opensource.org and post
their response if you guys don't have time for this. Let me know
if I can help.

Jim