Re: Lua licensing thoughts

[Benjamin Tolputt <btolputt@...>]

David Given wrote:
> While the GPL doesn't restrict what data a program *uses*, it *does*
> restrict your ability to redistribute that data. Lua bytecode is code
> --- it's a compiled program. Therefore, if the source that made it is
> GPLd, and you're not the original author, then you must provide a means
> to get the source if you want to redistribute it.
>   

Actually, that is incorrect. That would imply that all programs compiled
with gcc are GPL'ed. One can GPL a virtual machine & compiler but
distribute the code they produce under any license provided the compiled
byte/native code does not contain significant portions of GPL'd product.

Simply put - even if Lua was GPL-licensed (which it is not, it is simply
GPL-compatible), the byte code it produces can be released under any
license the author chooses. The simple fact that there are
hundreds-to-thousands of non-GPL applications compiled by gcc and
distributed as binaries are proof of that.

Also remember, I doubt any of those who have spoken here are lawyers
(agreeing or disagreeing with me). As such, everything we say as
"absolute" should be checked with someone with legal backing. I would
suggest checking out the Free Software Foundation's website and/or ask
them directly.

-- 
Regards,

Benjamin Tolputt
Analyst Programmer
Mob:   0417 456 505
Email: btolputt@bigpond.net.au

This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential to the
intended recipient and may be privileged. If you have received this
email inadvertently or you are not the intended recipient, you may not
disseminate, distribute, copy or in any way rely on it. Further, you
should notify the sender immediately and delete the email from your
computer. Whilst we have taken precautions to alert us to the presence
of computer viruses, we cannot guarantee that this email and any files
transmitted with it are free from such viruses.