Re: ActiveState seeking Lua community feedback

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

On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 12:09 PM, Andrew Starks <andrew@starksfam.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 12:28 PM, Russell Haley <russ.haley@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 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
>>
>
> That's a fair question.
>
> First, you'll notice that my reply claiming "rude" behavior was
> directed at Peter.
This was not clear, the email comes through to me (and everyone?)
simply as "Lua Mailing List". I'm not re-starting anything, just
pointing this out for your elucidation.

Russ