lua-users home
lua-l archive

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index] 

Russel, Sean, Andrew
Thank you for the debate on marketing messaging, legal risks, licensing and others. I can't go though the entire thread answering each point, but wanted to thank you all for the thoughtful discussion. Licensing in open source is a huge issue for enterprises and has spawned an entire industry unto itself. 

Cheers,

-JR

On 2016-11-03 1:10 PM, Russell Haley wrote:

On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 1:01 PM, Sean Conner <sean@conman.org> wrote:

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.

LGPL or not, their licensing model precludes a licensee violating the
LGPL as a concern. Their EULA only covers ActiveState supported
software, which is defined as a specific build distributed by them
(this is the point I am investigating for clarification).

Russ