Relicensing Lucia to a more permissive license

[JessicaTegner]

Hi. As part of Lucia 2.0 (the rewrite), I propose to change the license from LGPL to something more permissive.

I suggest the mozilla public license version 2.0, the Apache License 2.0 or the Boost Software License 1.0.

What are people's opinion on this.

[LordLuceus]

I vote for the Apache license.

[ashleygrobler04]

I would vote for apatchi

[JessicaTegner]

Here is a summary of the options available (all summaries are from https://tldrlegal.com/) :

Apache license 2.0:

You can do what you like with the software, as long as you include the required notices. This permissive license contains a patent license from the contributors of the code.

Can Commercial Use Modify Distribute Sublicense Private Use Use Patent Claims Place Warranty

Cannot Hold Liable Use Trademark

Must Include Copyright Include License State Changes Include Notice

MPL 2.0:

MPL is a copyleft license that is easy to comply with. You must make the source code for any of your changes available under MPL, but you can combine the MPL software with proprietary code, as long as you keep the MPL code in separate files. Version 2.0 is, by default, compatible with LGPL and GPL version 2 or greater. You can distribute binaries under a proprietary license, as long as you make the source available under MPL.

Can Commercial Use Modify Distribute Sublicense Place Warranty Use Patent Claims

Cannot Use Trademark Hold Liable

Must Include Copyright Include License Disclose Source Include Original

zlib license:

This license is used for the zlib library and some other open-source libraries/packages. It is very short and very permissive. It requires you to change the name of modified software and contains a sentence removing liability from the authors of the software.

Can Commercial Use Modify Distribute

Cannot Hold Liable

Must Include Copyright Rename

Boost Software License 1.0:

This is a simple license that includes a clause on warranty, and encourages free and open use of software licensed under it. You must include the original copyright and this license in software unless in the form of “machine-executable object code generated by a source processor.”

Can Commercial Use Modify Distribute

Cannot Hold Liable

Must Include Copyright Include License

[JessicaTegner]

Hi guys. After several days of thinking, I've found that the "Boost Software License, Version 1.0" would be the best fit, taking the votes into considerations for the following reasons:

• Offers what the apache license 2.0 does
• Have the extra benefit for end developers, that they don't have to include the mention of lucia or the Boost Software License together in their game.

I'll close this issue in a couple of days (as resolved), unless someone has any objections to lucia 2.0 being licensed under the Boost Software License.