Re: Legal Risk (was Re: Re: ActiveState seeking Lua community feedback

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

On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 12:41 PM, Sean Conner <sean@conman.org> wrote:
> It was thus said that the Great Russell Haley once stated:
>>
>> Moreover, I haven't seen a single Lua package from Luarocks or
>> LuaForge or Github that was not MIT or more liberal
>
>   There are a few Lua modules that are LGPL (some even available via
> LuaRocks).  I just thought I should point that out since not everybody
> consideres the (L)GPL to be "liberal" [1].

Excellent point. However, LGPL is only problematic if the licensee
modifies the original source code from the licensed package. As the
ActiveState distribution model is "managed binary packages", the end
user would not be able to modify the packages without invalidating the
ActiveState end user license (which I am reviewing now) so they do not
provide any licensing coverage that would "eliminate legal risk" from
an LGPL licensed package. Their statement is still patently[1]
incorrect.

[1] patently - clearly; plainly; evidently
from http://www.thefreedictionary.com/patently