 |
lua-l archive |
|
|
||
|
LGPL is okay for Lua add-ons and modules (if dynamically linking to the library). GPL is not, since even linking to it causes all other code to be 'infected' into GPL as well.
This has been an issue i.e. with readline (which is GPL). It may not be included in any distributed binaries.
Lucas Ackerman kirjoittaa torstaina, 7. elokuuta 2003, kello 23:41:
That's an interesting observation. I'd chalk the reason up to being the difference between a library (for which the LGPL is clearly intended) and a language where you want unrestricted growth in popularity and no limits to use. It's also significant that Lua is meant to be embedded in other languages, applications, and platforms, and so it's best to have a 'taint-free' license as well as one that has zero restrictions on modifications (seeing as Lua is often tweaked and customized for certain uses). I have to agree that the MIT license is thus a strength for Lua (whether or not it's the best license for anything else).-Lucas Mark Hamburg wrote:Gnu Library Public License (FLTK) v. MIT License (Lua). Using the MIT License is one of Lua's big strengths. Mark on 8/7/03 4:29 AM, Ashish Ranjan at ashishwave@yahoo.com wrote:Hi, i will like to point out that fltk ( fltk.org) has good collection of widgets and also light, that is, it does not make BIGGIE executables like WxWindows. Also, it is very very PORTABLE and bindings exist. Even there is also luafltk already.