Re: ActiveState seeking Lua community feedback

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

http://www.activestate.com/business-edition-terms

Item number 14 in their EULA is interesting. If you stop paying for
support you have to stop using the software. Would that apply to the
Lua base libraries? Does simply compiling a binary allow one to close
the license? Would that be valid if the binaries and byte code output
is identical to the Puc released version?



On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 8:08 PM, Simon Cozens <simon@simon-cozens.org> wrote:
> On 02/11/2016 18:21, Jeff Rouse wrote:
>> It in no way reflects on how the community supports
>> the language.
>
> I also find the wording confrontational. "Why take risks with open
> source Lua" implies that the open source nature of Lua is a problem to
> be solved. Will you be selling a closed source version of Lua to "solve"
> the problem?
>
> I'm not saying this to disrespect AS - I already have a lot of respect,
> having seen how they helped (and funded!) the Perl community. I think
> it's probably just a case of sloppy editing. If the risk you're trying
> to ameliorate is the need for legal compliance, find a way to say that;
> don't blame it on "open source".
>
> S
>
>