4 ms·
I think using Lua scripting like that still counts as "dynamic linking" from the point of view of the GPL. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#GPLPlug
by ufo 8y ago
I think using Lua scripting like that still counts as "dynamic linking" from the point of view of the GPL.
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#GPLPlugins https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#GPLPlugins
- sigstoat 8y agoprobably so. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#IfInterpreterIsGPL https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#IfInterpreterIs... also seems relevant. stallman's portion of https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/11/msg00217.html https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/11/msg00217.html too
- openbasic 8y agoNever thought of that. What if code is compiled to VM bytecode first?
- DougBTX 8y agoThe examples in the FAQ imply that they consider separate binaries that share “complex” data structures to be parts of the same program, blurring the line for what counts as dynamic linking.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- badsectoracula 8y agoThe Lua interpreter itself would still be under GPL but the code that the Lua interprets would not since as far as the interpreter is concerned the script is data. The GPL even has a section on this: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#IfInterpreterIsGPL https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#IfInterpreterIs...
- wtetzner 8y agoBut the Lua scripts would be bound to the underlying game engine. I would all come down to whether or not a judge would see it as a derivative work.
- ufo 8y agoLua is MIT licensed. The point is that if you have a GPL game engine and use lua scripts to turn it into a full game then you also need to license the scripts as gpl if you want to distribute the game. (As others pointed out , oif you are looking for a loophole, game assets might be a better way to go)