Hallo, Claude Heiland-Allen hat gesagt: // Claude Heiland-Allen wrote:
Yes, Pd is BSD (I think), Lua is MIT, but pdlua is GPL (I guess by habit rather than deep choice).
I'll think about this some more, maybe I'll change the license for future releases. Would appreciate comments/criticism on this.
Here's a snippet from http://lua-users.org/wiki/LuaStyleGuide
Software Licensing
The choice of software license for your Lua code depends on your goals and what type of code it is (e.g. module or application). Licensing choice is particularly significant for modules, which are often distributed with other modules and applications.
There are advantages to licensing Lua modules, or at least those intended for the general Lua community, under the same terms as Lua[2] itself, which as of version 5.0 is the MIT license[3]. Not only is the MIT license a very simple to understand and unrestrictive license (in fact, no more restrictive than Lua itself), but consistency in licensing between modules and with Lua allows simplified distribution of bundles of modules and Lua together, such as for distributions and embedded versions of Lua. (This basic approach has worked very well in the past for the Perl language, which has thousands of modules most entirely under an MIT-like license called the Artistic License, under which Perl is also distributed. Perl modules often indicate their licensing simply with the statement "Licensed under the same terms as Perl itself.") Those advantages of using an MIT license are reduced, though not eliminated, if your Lua module acts as a binding to some C library released under some very different license such (L)GPL or a closed source one since the latter code impose stronger restrictions on distribution anyway. Avoid, whenever possible, writing your own license or adding additional clauses but rather consider strongly the words of warning about consistency at the top of this document since inconsistency is a detriment to reusability, and reusability is a main advantage of modules.
Ciao