On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 2:38 AM, Robert Millan <r...@aybabtu.com> wrote: > First of all, there's no license problem. We usually write our own code, but > when we have specific reasons to import it from another project, any license > that is compatible with GPL (v3 and later) would be considered suitable.
Aha! So the Lua license really is a red herring here.. > However, we only import code from external projects when there's an important > reason to do so. For example, we imported LZMA code because we needed the > best compression around, and we didn't want to reinvent the wheel. In the > specific case of LUA, this compromise didn't make sense to us since we already > had a scripting engine. ...the real reason seems to be that you don't really believe in Lua as a primary scripting language for GRUB, correct? IOW, the inclusion of Lua was more of a fluke than a deliberate decision of investing in a different scripting engine. This is not a value judgment -- just an attempt to figure things out. Personally I'm really excited about Lua. I see that a lot folks share my opinion (I can't wait to see Lua as a scripting engine for NetBSD kernel, for example) and I thought that GRUB project was among these folks. Thanks, Roman. _______________________________________________ Grub-devel mailing list Grub-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel
