Re: Licensing.. ZLib

[Luiz Henrique de Figueiredo <lhf@...>]

>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