Re: ActiveState seeking Lua community feedback

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

On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 10:23 AM, Andrew Starks <andrew@starksfam.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 12:02 PM, Peter Hickman
> <peterhickman386@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> There is also the outcome that the manager see it and goes "I thought so,
>> this open software has - complexity of open source licensing - big problems
>> that require us to pay a 3rd party to mitigate. But who are this ActiveState
>> anyway, never heard of them before. Probably just some scammers trying to
>> rip us off. Besides I will have to get this past legal to make sure we are
>> covered for the problems that open source licensing has and make sure that
>> this 2bit operation called ActiveState wont disappear when the problems
>> arise"
>>
>> Gee ActiveState, thanks for helping out.
>
>
> And now it's time for all of us to wonder aloud, "Why doesn't Lua see
> wide spread adoption?"
>
> It sounds like ActiveState is not for you?
>
> Dear Jeff,
>
> Thank you for taking an interest in the Lua community. As you can see,
> there is broad and lively interest in this awesome, simple language.
> As you may have picked up, there is some concern about the tone of
> some of the points made in your marketing, at least amongst those that
> have been using Lua for quite a while. My hope is that these responses
> don't discourage you from including Lua in your portfolio of
> solutions.
>
> I also hope that, in spite of some rude ways in which the messages
> were delivered, you might consider taking the essence of those
> concerns and address them. I'm sure that there is a  way to
> communicate the real and important value that ActiveState is providing
> while making sure not to imply something that isn't true about the
> core Lua distribution or its licensing.

I'm sorry you thought my message was rude. I've in fact done nothing
but encourage them and given them my suggestions on where I see value.
However, portraying MIT licensed software as a legal risk is not
dubious or "misleading", it's wrong. I'm curious why you think that's
rude? Almost everyone has shown encouragement to the original post.
I'm not quite sure what you're getting at.

Russ