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.
