On Nov 4, 1:11 am, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Nov 3, 12:36 pm, Matthias Benkard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Yes, it's worth worrying about. The problem is, you're going to have
> > the danger of fragmenting the Clojure user base.
>
> I think Clojure has potential to become *very much* more well known
> and used.
> Are we sure we want to risk going down this route when things are an
> order of magnitude harder? (Think Mozilla.)
>
There is not the same risk for Clojure, as all of the contributions
are covered by a CA that allows me to dual license down the road if it
becomes useful to do so.
So far, you are only the third person to complain about lack of GPL
compatibility.
I would turn it around and say - if there is something you want to
combine with Clojure that is GPL why don't you ask them to make it
LGPL instead, in which case there would be no problem? The problem
lies with GPL.
Rich
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Clojure" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
