 |
lua-l archive |
|
|
||
|
On 11/4/2016 11:08 AM, Simon Cozens 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".
The wording sucks, I have to agree. I'm sure ActiveState have a good business case to make in a more detailed presentation, but distilled into one single sentence, it's rather ambiguous, casts too wide a net. Would love to see it adjusted...
To be more sarcastic, I think bean-counting managers will be happy to read such phrases; in a way the whole kaboodle is designed to sell the thing to risk-averse managers (uh, 'optimize' the cost centre, outsource the risk). They are not selling it to us coders, they are selling it to those who control budgets...
-- Cheers, Kein-Hong Man (esq.) Selangor, Malaysia