News : The level of daily SPAM has reached insane proportions, all registrations are now manual. I ask you to send me an e-mail (john (at) murga (dot) org), to confirm that you want me to create an account for you.


Post Reply  Post Thread 
MurgaLua's GPL implications
Author Message
znarf
Junior Member
**


Posts: 34
Group: Registered
Joined: Jun 2007
Status: Offline
Reputation: 0
Post: #1
MurgaLua's GPL implications

I was just wondering about the implications of that MurgaLua is licensed unter the conditions of the GPL.
It's clear what it means if you want to adjust, extend, or directly reuse MurgaLua's C++ code: Then your work has also adhere to the conditions of the GPL.
However, what about just using the MurgaLua runtime environment from my own Lua script? Do the "viral" characteristics of the GPL also apply then, implicating that any Lua script you want to distribute together with the MurgaLua runtime has to be licensed unter GPL as well?
I'm not concerned about the open source aspect, that's perfectly ok with me that I have to deliver MurgaLua's source code and that any licensee can see my code and even adjust it for their own purposes, it's more about the copyleft that allows any licensee to spread my work almost without any restriction, which would destroy at least some hypothetical business models.
In this case I'd say that MurgaLua's license is much too restrictive, especially compared to its base libraries such as Lua or SQLite.

Regards,
Gerald

P.S.: Now I did a little bit of web search on how Java (which is GPL as well) solves this issue: It uses the so-called GNU classpath clarification to make clear that just using the platform does not affect the licensing options for users.
See http://java.sun.com/developer/technicalA...s2_qa.html, question 2 and http://www.gnu.org/software/classpath/license.html.
So I'd definitely recommend to add this exception to MurgaLua's licensing conditions.

This post was last modified: 07-29-2007 12:36 AM by znarf.

07-29-2007 12:18 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JohnMurga
Administrator
*******


Posts: 381
Group: Administrators
Joined: Apr 2007
Status: Offline
Reputation: 2
Post: #2
RE: MurgaLua's GPL implications

I'll add the exception although I am not sure it is required, as this is not the first GPL'd scripting language out there ...

As it stands currently from my perspective you are allowed to distribute your scripts with the murgaLua binary(s) of your choice (even if you built it yourself), along with a link somewhere to where the user can get a copy of the source to built murgaLua themselves. However, if you make ANY modifications to the murgaLua runtime and distribute anything to do with these then you have to comply with the GPL.

BUT, as far as I am concerned the LUA scripts that are developed to run against the murgaLua runtime can have whatever license they want ... Restrictive or otherwise. Furthermore the new murgaLua compiler will make it possible to create executables with no script source visible (although it can be extracted), I also see these executables being re-distributed without restrictions.

As I said, as long as the murgaLua runtime is not modified in any way ...

If you do you have to contribute that change back to the world :-)

Cheers
JohnM

07-29-2007 02:40 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
mikshaw
Senior Member
****


Posts: 522
Group: Registered
Joined: Apr 2007
Status: Offline
Reputation: 5
Post: #3
RE: MurgaLua's GPL implications

This is a misconception about the GPL that has been spread by both those who are unsure and simply concerned about their own licensing (yourself, I assume), and those who wish to present the GPL as something evil that "frees" anything that is remotely associated with it.

The requirement of the GPL that subsequent projects must also be released under the GPL applies only to those projects that directly use code from a GPL project. For example, if you were to make modifications to murgaLua and release it, it must remain under GPL. If you create a binary that statically links GPL libraries into itself or otherwise uses code from a GPL project, it must be GPL. But if you release a project that merely depends on another GPL project at runtime, it does not need to be GPL or even a GPL-compatible license.

07-29-2007 07:23 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JohnMurga
Administrator
*******


Posts: 381
Group: Administrators
Joined: Apr 2007
Status: Offline
Reputation: 2
Post: #4
RE: MurgaLua's GPL implications

mikshaw Wrote:
The requirement of the GPL that subsequent projects must also be released under the GPL applies only to those projects that directly use code from a GPL project. For example, if you were to make modifications to murgaLua and release it, it must remain under GPL. If you create a binary that statically links GPL libraries into itself or otherwise uses code from a GPL project, it must be GPL. But if you release a project that merely depends on another GPL project at runtime, it does not need to be GPL or even a GPL-compatible license.


That was my understanding, but I haven't had time to look into it ...

Cheers
JohnM

07-29-2007 07:59 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
znarf
Junior Member
**


Posts: 34
Group: Registered
Joined: Jun 2007
Status: Offline
Reputation: 0
Post: #5
RE: MurgaLua's GPL implications

Thanks for the explications!
If this is the common understanding of the GPL, then I estimate this license as perfectly suitable for murgaLua.
Regards,
Gerald

07-29-2007 10:25 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply  Post Thread 

View a Printable Version
Send this Thread to a Friend
Subscribe to this Thread | Add Thread to Favorites

Forum Jump: