Re: Proposal: change license to ZLIB license

[Felipe Ferreira <felipefsdev@...>]

> Sorry for my (probably) stupid question, but why so much attention is paid to reproducing the copyright notice?
> Does it give some benefits to Lua authors?

The attention in question is whether the copyright notice goes in the
source code, in a dialog box, hidden in the binary???

Since Lua is fruit of an academic project, I believe so. And I think
it's a good thing, that's why I suggested an equivalent license, but
more explicit.

Anyway, I meant to bring attention to that, but I don't mean to cause
a fuss for the authors.

On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 4:41 PM, Egor Skriptunoff
<egor.skriptunoff@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 8:15 PM, Felipe Ferreira <felipefsdev@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Both ZLIB and BSD gives the end-user the same freedom for modifying the
>> software and use for whatever purpose. The only difference is how the
>> copyright notice must be reproduced: (1) for ZLIB, the copyright must be
>> retained in the source-code and (2) for BSD (Simplified BSD License), the
>> copyright must be retained in the source-code and ADDED to the binary form
>> and documentation.
>>
>
> Sorry for my (probably) stupid question, but why so much attention is paid
> to reproducing the copyright notice?
> Does it give some benefits to Lua authors?
> Why not using extremely permissive license like the following:
> https://tldrlegal.com/license/do-what-the-fuck-you-want-to-but-it's-not-my-fault-public-license-v1-(wtfnmfpl-1.0)#fulltext