Re: Roadmap for LUA support in GRUB

[Vladimir 'phcoder' Serbinenko <phcoder@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1389 bytes --]

Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 2:41 AM, Felix Zielcke <fzielcke@z-51.de> wrote:
>   
>> Am Dienstag, den 10.11.2009, 19:38 -0800 schrieb Roman Shaposhnik:
>>     
>>> Browsing the archives of grub-devel reveals that Lua support was moved to
>>> grub-extras which makes me ask these two questions:
>>>     1. Was the decision to move Lua based exclusively on the licensing concerns?
>>>       
>> I don't think it was exclusively only decided because of the license,
>> but this is the top reason for it.
>>     
>
> I'd appreciated knowing non-licensing reasons as well.
>   
The only other reason was to encourage developpement of sh-like scripting.
> On the licensing front, though, what was an actual issue there?
> After all, Lua has a respectable FOSS license and I'm sure there's tons of
> MIT-licensed software in Debian. What made Lua different?
>   
GNU isn't Debian. GNU has a very strong copyright policy and for code to
become GNU it usually has to be copyright-assigned to FSF. It's not the
case of LUA. So we created grub-extras specifically to hold code which
is perfectly legal, free and GPLv3-compatible but not suitable for GNU.
Any distribution which doesn't have anything against code not being
copyrighted by FSF shouldn't have any reason not to add grub-extras

-- 
Regards
Vladimir 'phcoder' Serbinenko



[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 293 bytes --]