My last post: Humorously, Rich Hickey's choice of the EPL reminds me of the GPL. Both licenses (EPL as used in Clojure and GPL as written) are intended to make modifications usable by the original author. However: 1. You can already create proprietary versions of Clojure; 2. Rich avoided the GPL's words and legal effects, but used one of the GPL's principle. Even the Free Software Foundation says that the GPL is to promote the creation of free/open-source software. Rich has no reason except making derivative works usable by him. The current Clojure license, which is incompatible with the GPL, is effectively the GPL, in spirit and purpose. It's true that authors of FOSS want to get contribution from others, but you can't force others to work for you, or to do something that would potentially benefit you. Rich Hickey says that it does not make sense to allow the creation of derivative works that he can't use. Not so free software. He is like Richard Stallman now. Rich Hickey should visit http://copyfree.org/ to
-- -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.