Re: luaproc

[Mike Schmitz <mschmitz@...>]

On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 10:42:05PM +0100, Mark Meijer wrote:
> 2009/2/20 Mike Schmitz <mschmitz@colug.org>:
> > On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 03:16:16PM +0100, Mark Meijer wrote:
> >> On a side note, and not to be picky (I do hope the answer to my
> >> question is yes in this particular case), but is GPL-ed software even
> >> allowed to have that GPL license removed and replaced by a different
> >> license?
> >
> > I for one am sick and tired of hearing all the GPL bashing.  Please
> > educate yourself.
> >
> > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html
> 
> And I'm sick of people taking any comment I make that smells mildly
> critical as a personal insult, upon which I have to apologize and
> explain my intentions so farging careful so as to not step on any more
> toes. So I won't do that this time, I've had my quotum for today (not
> on this list).

Upon reflection the GPL bashing that I am sick of hasn't been on this
list either, for the most part...

> First of all I'm not bashing GPL, in fact I'm immensely thankful for
> its existence and what it represents. I have no interest in bashing
> any open source license or undermining any open source development
> effort.

Very glad to hear it

> Second, I thought there perhaps just might be some legal issues for
> the authors of luaproc when they announced having changed from a GPL
> to MIT license. I guessed there was probably no reason to worry,
> nevertheless I was trying to be helpful and put my concern about this
> on the table, by simply asking. I figured that would be preferable to
> waiting for some legal eagle to take advantage of a possible
> oversight, which is all to easily made.
> 
> If that's too much for you to take, then tough MIT, bub.
> 
> And FAQ you too.

I like it, I may have to use that one... ;-)

I apologize for my peevishness to you and to the list.