Re: Lua licensing thoughts

[David Given <dg@...>]

Benjamin Tolputt wrote:
> 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.

Actually, by 'source that made it' I mean the Lua source code that got
compiled into the bytecode, not the compiler that did the compiling. If
your Lua source code is GPL'd then you can't distribute the bytecode
without complying with the GPL. As you say, the license of the compiler
is *usually* irrelevant.

(Exceptions being: (a) if the compiler has an EULA that restricts the
situations in which you can use it, which Lua doesn't, but that some
commercial compilers do; or (b) if the compiler contains boilerplate
that gets emitted into the output bytecode, in which case the license of
the boilerplate applies. Lua doesn't do this, but you may note that
packages like STL implementations --- where all the code gets emitted
inline into your program --- have to have special licensing exceptions
to allow their use.)

-- 
David Given
dg@cowlark.com