Re: ActiveState seeking Lua community feedback

[Russell Haley <russ.haley@...>]

On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 9:37 AM, Andrew Starks <andrew@starksfam.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 11:16 Russell Haley <russ.haley@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 2:17 AM, Javier Guerra Giraldez
>> <javier@guerrag.com> wrote:
>> > On 2 November 2016 at 07:21, Jeff Rouse <jeffr@activestate.com> wrote:
>> >>> Your site says: "Why take risks with open source Lua and community
>> >>> support".
>> >>> I don't see any risks in open source Lua. What do you have in mind?
>> >>>
>> >> The risks for an enterprise is that they need to make sure of issues
>> >> like getting timely support, a contractual obligation for service,
>> >> assurances and timely security fixes. In many cases they need
>> >> the backing of a commercial entity to feel comfortable and in
>> >> some cases this is a legal or compliance requirement. To
>> >> them it takes risk away. So its important for us to speak to
>> >> that. It in no way reflects on how the community supports
>> >> the language.
>> >
>> >
>> > Here's some feedback:
>> >
>> > - most of the language in the site feels confrontational; offering
>> > your distribution (and support) as an alternative, not a complement to
>> > the community.
>>
>> >From your page http://www.activestate.com/lua :
>>
>> "ActiveLua OEM Edition takes the complexity out of open source
>> licensing by guaranteeing assurance and eliminating legal risk that
>> goes along with distributing Lua in commercial applications."
>>
>> This is patently incorrect. There is no licensing risk in using Lua in
>> a commercial application due to the broad (and almost uniform) use of
>> MIT and permissive licenses in the Lua community. I think I speak for
>> everyone in saying you should change this and remove any implication
>> that licensing Lua software carries risk. While you may offer clients
>> the service of navigating complex licensing, Lua should not be
>> directly referenced as carrying any legal risk.
>>
>> Also, I believe one reason for a "confrontational" feel is due to a
>> lack of any indication that Lua is in fact extremely business
>> friendly. You have not provided any positive attributions to using Lua
>> in a commercial environment and one would get the feeling that it
>> would be similar to using GPL and copy-left software. Again, the use
>> of an MIT license allows commercial applications the ability to create
>> proprietary extensions and embed Lua into their software WITH ZERO
>> LICENSING RISK. It's my opinion that you would make the community feel
>> more comfortable by changing from "OMG License risks!" to "No License
>> Risks, great software and we have the latest toolchains prebuilt for
>> you!". It is also a smart business case to encourage businesses to use
>> a software you support.
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Russ  (And I didn't even rant once about GPL!)
>>
>
> Russ,
>
> First, you don't speak for everyone on this list. I think you meant
> something much less emotionally charged there, but I won't guess.
I don't think there was any emotional charge there? Everyone who wants
your MIT licensed software portrayed as a legal risk please contact me
and I will retract my statement.

Russ