Murga-Projects Forums

Full Version: License
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Hi!
I think one thing that is really missing is a decent license.
I talked to some guy's who maintain GRML (http://grml.org) and their main point (besides that there is no debian package available) is that there is no clear license.
This would also best be on the doc's page, and in the tar.

Greetz,

Jan-Pieter
PS: if someone know's how to build a decent debian package: this would most certainly augment the chances of murgaLua being included in GRML.
I second that. I was also going to raise that issue.

If John wants to stick with the GPL then I have no problems, but the license should be clarified. It would also be a good thing to have a written statement, that scripts and binary libs that are loaded into murgaLua don't fall under the restrictions of the license. Also an exception for section 3 that states, that it is enough to point to the murgaLua homepage.

Juergen
In versions prior to 0.5.5 the GNU GPL version 2 was included in the release. More recent versions had this license file mentioned in the readme, but the license file itself was missing. I assume this was not intentional.
That's the problem with doing incomplete releases ...

Although I am surprised by the response of the GRML guy.

But ... I have almost finished testing all the code of my current release, and I'll make sure to make a release that includes all the correct paperwork ... My code is GNU GPL 2, and the code I use falls under it's own licenses.

As mikshaw said, the last official release was 0.5.5 and that is clear about it's licensing ... When you invoke murgaLua it also states it is GPL.

Juergen - Feel free to propose the wording you consider necessary ...

Note the compiler notice that was bundled with the last release.

Cheers
JohnM

JohnMurga Wrote:
Juergen - Feel free to propose the wording you consider necessary ...

Note the compiler notice that was bundled with the last release.

I haven't had time to write something down, but I rethought it a little and came to the conclusion, that it would make sense to have a binary distribution license for the officially released binaries, so that they could be freely distributed.
Since they are also statically compiled, it is only possible to call internal symbols through the public Lua API.

It would make sense to have a license that allows the redistribution of those binaries under the condition, that they are unmodified and that a link to the murgaLua homepage is included. Also the use of the Lua API and all functions that are accessible through the Lua API from scripts and binary modules are not affected by any conditions of the GPL license.

Only modified binaries would then fall under the provisions of the GPL. Although it would still make sense to have a exception for section 3, like allowing the distribution of a zipped patch with the binary or something similar.

Juergen

The ability to freely distribute murgalua with very limited restrictions would be a great boon to the project. In my opinion, the open source world has shot itself in the foot with legalese in the GPL that scares the living daylights out of many commercial concerns who don't want to touch the GPL or any other open source software with a ten foot pole.

Has anyone ever bought a Windows PC with any open source software pre-installed on it? As far as I know, it would be legal if the license was included. But, it just doesn't happen.
The purpose of GPL is simply to prevent the code from being stolen and abused for self-serving puposes. The fact that there are hundreds or thousands of lawyers hired for no reason other than to find loopholes in things such as the GPL is the reason it necessarily is filled with "legalese". The only reasons commercial businesses are afraid of GPL are 1) They want to have total control over the code, and 2) They are mislead by other commercial businesses that falsly claim the GPL "frees" everything it is associated with.

Quote:
Has anyone ever bought a Windows PC with any open source software pre-installed on it?

Of course not. Windows machines are installed with Windows and sometimes a small collection of trial software that is financially tied with Microsoft. Read a little about the practices of Microsoft and its affiliates over the last two decades and you may get an idea of how the commercial PC world works. It is almost entirely contrary to the open source world, but things are gradually changing in favor of free software.

asafp Wrote:
The ability to freely distribute murgalua with very limited restrictions would be a great boon to the project. In my opinion, the open source world has shot itself in the foot with legalese in the GPL that scares the living daylights out of many commercial concerns who don't want to touch the GPL or any other open source software with a ten foot pole.


That kind of FUD disturbs me ...

MurgaLua makes use of code that is under the GPL and other licenses, and as Juergen suggested I can (and will), make things easier for the end user by ensuring all the source and licenses for everything contained in murgaLua is available at my web-site and setting out clear terms of use.

Then you build whatever you want, in any way you want on top of murgaLua, and just make sure you have a clear reference somewhere back to the murgaLua site where those interested can find all the source and licenses to murgaLua itself.

There are no restrictions to your project unless you use the compiler ...

I have no desire or power to change the licenses for the components I use, so I have to make sure I comply with them on my end.

So all this is fine unless you chose to modify, re-compile and distribute murgaLua. I you distribute, then it is your responsibility to share what you did with everyone so that they may benefit from your work as you did from the work of countless others.

If have read so much crap from people fear mongering about the GPL that I have no time for it, specially as none of the many commercial concerns I have worked with or for have had any problems of concerns with this... Some of which have large legal and compliance teams looking after every detail of their software usage.

And as far as the software installed on the last couple of PCs I bought ... It was mostly adware, nagware or cut-down versions of real software. So no, there wasn't anything really useful there :-)

Cheers
John de Murga

Reference URL's