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

[Sean Conner <sean@...>]

It was thus said that the Great Russell Haley once stated:
> 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.

  They could easily by not including any (L)GPL modules in their
distribution.

  -spc (Or at least, ignore that problem entirely ... )

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