Hi! On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 10:53 AM, Vladimir 'phcoder' Serbinenko <phco...@gmail.com> wrote: >> I'd appreciated knowing non-licensing reasons as well. >> > The only other reason was to encourage developpement of sh-like scripting.
Fair enough. Would it be, then, fair to say that Lua was never meant to be a scripting engine for GRUB, but was more of an oddity? I was pretty excited when it first made its way into GRUB simply because it is such a delight to do scripting in. Don't get me wrong, but compared to Lua sh-like scripting feels like hard labor :-( >> 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 Got it! This makes perfect sense. Thanks, Roman. _______________________________________________ Grub-devel mailing list Grub-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel
