Re: Regarding Clojure's license
This is musicdenotat...@gmail.com. I wasn't able to post from that account. If I have been banned, then listen to my apology: This user does not intend to disrupt or deface this forum or the Clojure community. He is just trying to get the Clojure's license changed. This topic has been discussed before and resulted into a flame war.https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/clojure/bpnKr88rvt8 *This user has encountered a problem with Clojure's license and had to post aggressively. I am sorry for any inconvenience.** Rich Hickey doesn't like people modifying Clojure without contributing back or the strong requirements of the GPL/LGPL. After reading and evaluating various open-source licenses carefully, I recommend the Mozilla Public License version 2.0 http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/2.0/. I think it fits his (and the Clojure community's) goal without sacrificing license compatibility. (It is GPL-compatible, unless you declare it to be incompatible, but please don't do so.) * Do you understand this? It is a joke. -- -- 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.
Re: Regarding Clojure's license
To me, this section appears to be about the LGPL library; so if you are using an LGPL library, you cannot obsfucate in your (possibly modified) version of it, nor prevent people debugging the library. Sounds to me like jobsworth lawyers -- either they can spend time understand something or they can just say no which is the safer cause of action for them. Phil Colin Fleming colin.mailingl...@gmail.com writes: At least one company (mine at the time) had a problem with using LGPL software because of the clause where you explicitly allow reverse engineering of your product in order to use a different version of the LGPL library. That's enough to give any corporate lawyer the screaming heebie jeebies, not to mention the possibility of having to support your product with users running random versions of some of the libraries you depend on. A ridiculous prospect? Maybe, but the LGPL very explicitly allows it and forces acceptance of those terms, so clearly someone is anticipating doing it. On 13 November 2013 11:25, John Gabriele jmg3...@gmail.com wrote: On Tuesday, November 12, 2013 11:30:23 AM UTC-5, Sean Corfield wrote: It's also worth pointing out that a lot of US companies won't use GPL-licensed software (and won't pay for a closed source version), and many aren't comfortable with LGPL either. I don't see why a company would have any problem at all with *using* LGPL'd software, even in a product. However, I can see the possible complaints if they wanted to *modify* it and then distribute their modified version (since that would then require distributing the modified source along with it). -- -- 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. -- -- Phillip Lord, Phone: +44 (0) 191 222 7827 Lecturer in Bioinformatics, Email: phillip.l...@newcastle.ac.uk School of Computing Science, http://homepages.cs.ncl.ac.uk/phillip.lord Room 914 Claremont Tower, skype: russet_apples Newcastle University, twitter: phillord NE1 7RU -- -- 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.
Re: Regarding Clojure's license
On Thu, 14 Nov 2013, Korny Sietsma wrote: any sufficiently poorly worded argument is indistinguishable from trolling. Is that original? I want to quote it. A lot. Heh. The reaction was spontaneous and the phrasing is my own. I wasn't thinking about Poe's Law at the time, but it's somewhat similar (though aimed at parody and crankery, rather than straight troublemaking versus ineffective communication). Also, apologies to Sir Arthur C. Clarke, of course. Paul Snyder -- -- 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.
Re: Regarding Clojure's license
I did consider the possibility that it just wasn't funny!
James Reeves ja...@booleanknot.com writes:
I'm afraid your jokes are a little too subtle for me, Phillip :)
- James
On 12 November 2013 17:01, Phillip Lord phillip.l...@newcastle.ac.ukwrote:
James Reeves ja...@booleanknot.com writes:
On 12 November 2013 16:26, Phillip Lord phillip.l...@newcastle.ac.uk
wrote:
While we are talking, does anyone know why (contains? [:a :b :c] :b)
returns false?
This would be better placed in its own thread I think, but it's because
the
contains? function checks for the presence of keys, not values. In a
vector, the keys are the indexes: (contains? [:a :b :c] 1) = true.
(defn joke?
Returns true if an attempt at humour is present in the given
collection of words, otherwise returns false. Note that for internet
based collections of words, 'joke?' operates in polynomial time, and
often returns the wrong answer anyway.
{:added 1.6}
[content]
(. clojure.lang.RT (joke content)))
Phil
--
--
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.
--
--
Phillip Lord, Phone: +44 (0) 191 222 7827
Lecturer in Bioinformatics, Email: phillip.l...@newcastle.ac.uk
School of Computing Science,
http://homepages.cs.ncl.ac.uk/phillip.lord
Room 914 Claremont Tower, skype: russet_apples
Newcastle University, twitter: phillord
NE1 7RU
--
--
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.
Re: Regarding Clojure's license
phillip.l...@newcastle.ac.uk (Phillip Lord) writes: I did consider the possibility that it just wasn't funny! Oh, no – it was hilarious. :-) -Marshall -- -- 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.
Re: Regarding Clojure's license
Paul L. Snyder p...@pataprogramming.com writes: On Wed, 13 Nov 2013, musicdenotat...@gmail.com wrote: 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/ too I am personally a big proponent of the GPL, but this is NOT the way to do advocacy. Please stop embarrassing yourself and aggravating others by continuing this approach. I don't think he's an actual fan of GPL. In the good old days, this sort of argument used to rage across the usenet, then largely couched in terms of BSD vs GPL license. It used to be great fun, with the all sorts of people asserting the right to use the word free, and denying everone elses right to use it. My favorite answer is this entertainly offensive reply from a little known developer, with an unpronoucable name. https://groups.google.com/d/msg/gnu.misc.discuss/ZgAIXRJCQI8/hZJJ76s22oEJ I wonder what ever happened to him? Phil -- -- 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.
Re: Regarding Clojure's license
Hi, Not only your tone is inappropriate but you seem to really expect that the license scheme will change after nearly 6 years ? On what basis ? Your legal advice ? Against what we have all been experiencing in the last six years ? Please do us a favor, do some readings first before posting and soften the tone a bit, We will all be grateful :) Most of the stuff surrounding Clojure has been the subject of some careful decision process. Keep this in mind. Thank you, Luc P. I will not be dual licensing with GPL or LGPL. Both licenses allow the creation of derived works under GPL, a license I cannot use in my work. Allowing derived works I cannot use is not reciprocal and make no sense for me. 1. First, the license allow proprietary derivative works anyway. 2. That's also the point of the GPL. It is intended to make any derivative work available to the author usable to the author. Thus, Rich Hickey's choice of the EPL has the same rationale as the GPL. That violates the principle of free software. License incompatibilities like this divide the open-source community. Please change. -- -- 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. -- Softaddictslprefonta...@softaddicts.ca sent by ibisMail from my ipad! -- -- 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.
Re: Regarding Clojure's license
On Wed, 13 Nov 2013, Phillip Lord wrote: Paul L. Snyder p...@pataprogramming.com writes: On Wed, 13 Nov 2013, musicdenotat...@gmail.com wrote: 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/ too I am personally a big proponent of the GPL, but this is NOT the way to do advocacy. Please stop embarrassing yourself and aggravating others by continuing this approach. I don't think he's an actual fan of GPL. Huh, I guess you're right, and my attempt at dousing the flames may just have been pouring gasoline. I just took a look at the copyfree website, and it appears to be advocating licenses that approximate a public domain approach. It also appears to need a copy editor. I should have gone with my first reaction, which is that any suffienctly poorly worded argument is indistinguishable from trolling. In the good old days, this sort of argument used to rage across the usenet, then largely couched in terms of BSD vs GPL license. It used to be great fun, with the all sorts of people asserting the right to use the word free, and denying everone elses right to use it. My favorite answer is this entertainly offensive reply from a little known developer, with an unpronoucable name. https://groups.google.com/d/msg/gnu.misc.discuss/ZgAIXRJCQI8/hZJJ76s22oEJ I wonder what ever happened to him? Whatever it may be, I don't think he's mellowing with age. http://lkml.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1309.1/00905.html Paul Snyder -- -- 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.
Re: Regarding Clojure's license
At least one company (mine at the time) had a problem with using LGPL software because of the clause where you explicitly allow reverse engineering of your product in order to use a different version of the LGPL library. That's enough to give any corporate lawyer the screaming heebie jeebies, not to mention the possibility of having to support your product with users running random versions of some of the libraries you depend on. A ridiculous prospect? Maybe, but the LGPL very explicitly allows it and forces acceptance of those terms, so clearly someone is anticipating doing it. On 13 November 2013 11:25, John Gabriele jmg3...@gmail.com wrote: On Tuesday, November 12, 2013 11:30:23 AM UTC-5, Sean Corfield wrote: It's also worth pointing out that a lot of US companies won't use GPL-licensed software (and won't pay for a closed source version), and many aren't comfortable with LGPL either. I don't see why a company would have any problem at all with *using* LGPL'd software, even in a product. However, I can see the possible complaints if they wanted to *modify* it and then distribute their modified version (since that would then require distributing the modified source along with it). -- -- 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. -- -- 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.
Re: Regarding Clojure's license
any sufficiently poorly worded argument is indistinguishable from trolling. Is that original? I want to quote it. A lot. - Korny On 14 Nov 2013 01:42, Paul L. Snyder p...@pataprogramming.com wrote: On Wed, 13 Nov 2013, Phillip Lord wrote: Paul L. Snyder p...@pataprogramming.com writes: On Wed, 13 Nov 2013, musicdenotat...@gmail.com wrote: 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/ too I am personally a big proponent of the GPL, but this is NOT the way to do advocacy. Please stop embarrassing yourself and aggravating others by continuing this approach. I don't think he's an actual fan of GPL. Huh, I guess you're right, and my attempt at dousing the flames may just have been pouring gasoline. I just took a look at the copyfree website, and it appears to be advocating licenses that approximate a public domain approach. It also appears to need a copy editor. I should have gone with my first reaction, which is that any suffienctly poorly worded argument is indistinguishable from trolling. In the good old days, this sort of argument used to rage across the usenet, then largely couched in terms of BSD vs GPL license. It used to be great fun, with the all sorts of people asserting the right to use the word free, and denying everone elses right to use it. My favorite answer is this entertainly offensive reply from a little known developer, with an unpronoucable name. https://groups.google.com/d/msg/gnu.misc.discuss/ZgAIXRJCQI8/hZJJ76s22oEJ I wonder what ever happened to him? Whatever it may be, I don't think he's mellowing with age. http://lkml.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1309.1/00905.html Paul Snyder -- -- 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. -- -- 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.
Re: Regarding Clojure's license
On Wednesday, November 13, 2013 6:06:02 PM UTC-5, Colin Fleming wrote:
I don't see why a company would have any problem at all with *using*
LGPL'd software, even in a product. However, I can see the possible
complaints if they wanted to *modify* it and then distribute their
modified
version (since that would then require distributing the modified source
along with it).
At least one company (mine at the time) had a problem with using LGPL
software because of the clause where you explicitly allow reverse
engineering of your product in order to use a different version of the LGPL
library. {snip}
For what it's worth, I find that passage of the LGPL (4. Combined Works)
somewhat difficult to understand. It *seems* to me that it's saying:
although your combined work may be non-free,
* you can't restrict modification of the LGPL library contained therein,
and
* you can't restrict users from reverse engineering any modifications
you've made to the LGPL library contained therein.
Where that 2nd point seems redundant to me, since, if you're distributing a
modified version of an LGPL'd lib, you're already required to also
distribute the modified source of it as well.
-- John
--
--
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.
Re: Regarding Clojure's license
Although it's definitely difficult to understand, it says You may convey a
Combined Work under terms of your choice that, taken together, effectively
do not restrict modification of the portions of the Library contained in
the Combined Work and reverse engineering for debugging such
modifications, which sounds to me like you have to let users swap the
library out, and you accept that they may reverse engineer to allow them to
do so.
Section 4 d) (in the LGPL3 https://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl.html) also
says that, assuming you don't want to distribute any source (option 0) then
you must use a dynamic linking mechanism which uses a library already
present on the user's system (option 1) which rules out a Java app shipping
a library as a jar file with the main application.
Either way, the fine detail is fairly moot since the uncertainty alone is
enough to make most corporations (especially in the US) unwilling to risk
it. If I were running a US corp I'd need to be really, really sure that I
needed that library and that there were no viable alternatives and that I
couldn't reimplement in order to risk it. In my last company no LGPL
library ever made that cut.
On 14 November 2013 16:46, John Gabriele jmg3...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, November 13, 2013 6:06:02 PM UTC-5, Colin Fleming wrote:
I don't see why a company would have any problem at all with *using*
LGPL'd software, even in a product. However, I can see the possible
complaints if they wanted to *modify* it and then distribute their
modified
version (since that would then require distributing the modified source
along with it).
At least one company (mine at the time) had a problem with using LGPL
software because of the clause where you explicitly allow reverse
engineering of your product in order to use a different version of the LGPL
library. {snip}
For what it's worth, I find that passage of the LGPL (4. Combined Works)
somewhat difficult to understand. It *seems* to me that it's saying:
although your combined work may be non-free,
* you can't restrict modification of the LGPL library contained therein,
and
* you can't restrict users from reverse engineering any modifications
you've made to the LGPL library contained therein.
Where that 2nd point seems redundant to me, since, if you're distributing
a modified version of an LGPL'd lib, you're already required to also
distribute the modified source of it as well.
-- John
--
--
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.
--
--
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.
Re: Regarding Clojure's license
You may wish to look at this post: https://groups.google.com/d/msg/clojure/bpnKr88rvt8/VIeYR6vFztAJ - James On 12 November 2013 09:55, musicdenotat...@gmail.com wrote: To Rich Hickey: Why did you choose the Eclipse Public License for Clojure? 1. How did you make your license selection? 2. What advantages does the EPL have over other free/open-source software licenses such as GPL, LGPL, BSD, MIT, Apache, at least for the Clojure project? -- -- 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. -- -- 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.
Re: Regarding Clojure's license
There are answers to some related questions that have been discussed in previous discussions in this group. For example, the last time the question of the license arose, Sean Corfield pointed at the following discussion involving Rich Hickey from 2008: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/clojure/bpnKr88rvt8 Andy On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 1:55 AM, musicdenotat...@gmail.com wrote: To Rich Hickey: Why did you choose the Eclipse Public License for Clojure? 1. How did you make your license selection? 2. What advantages does the EPL have over other free/open-source software licenses such as GPL, LGPL, BSD, MIT, Apache, at least for the Clojure project? -- -- 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. -- -- 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.
Re: Regarding Clojure's license
I think his main intention was to keep the traffic up on the Clojure mailing list. It's important for any new(ish) language to have good stats on mailing list traffic, and the decision to use EPL results in regular why, why, why? threads. While we are talking, does anyone know why (contains? [:a :b :c] :b) returns false? Phil musicdenotat...@gmail.com writes: To Rich Hickey: Why did you choose the Eclipse Public License for Clojure? 1. How did you make your license selection? 2. What advantages does the EPL have over other free/open-source software licenses such as GPL, LGPL, BSD, MIT, Apache, at least for the Clojure project? -- -- Phillip Lord, Phone: +44 (0) 191 222 7827 Lecturer in Bioinformatics, Email: phillip.l...@newcastle.ac.uk School of Computing Science, http://homepages.cs.ncl.ac.uk/phillip.lord Room 914 Claremont Tower, skype: russet_apples Newcastle University, twitter: phillord NE1 7RU -- -- 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.
Re: Regarding Clojure's license
As James said, you've misunderstood the rationale. It's also worth pointing out that a lot of US companies won't use GPL-licensed software (and won't pay for a closed source version), and many aren't comfortable with LGPL either. EPL, Apache and others are more acceptable to many commercial organizations. And, yes, I speak as someone who has had to endure the legal team of a large corporation conducting open source software audits across projects I've worked on. If you Google for differences between EPL and GPL you'll find several interesting discussions since this seems to crop up for almost every EPL-licensed project... The differences between EPL and LGPL are more subtle but still important. Sean On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 7:17 AM, Kalinni Gorzkis musicdenotat...@gmail.com wrote: I will not be dual licensing with GPL or LGPL. Both licenses allow the creation of derived works under GPL, a license I cannot use in my work. Allowing derived works I cannot use is not reciprocal and make no sense for me. 1. First, the license allow proprietary derivative works anyway. 2. That's also the point of the GPL. It is intended to make any derivative work available to the author usable to the author. Thus, Rich Hickey's choice of the EPL has the same rationale as the GPL. That violates the principle of free software. License incompatibilities like this divide the open-source community. Please change. -- -- 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. -- Sean A Corfield -- (904) 302-SEAN An Architect's View -- http://corfield.org/ World Singles, LLC. -- http://worldsingles.com/ Perfection is the enemy of the good. -- Gustave Flaubert, French realist novelist (1821-1880) -- -- 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.
Re: Regarding Clojure's license
On 12 November 2013 16:26, Phillip Lord phillip.l...@newcastle.ac.ukwrote: While we are talking, does anyone know why (contains? [:a :b :c] :b) returns false? This would be better placed in its own thread I think, but it's because the contains? function checks for the presence of keys, not values. In a vector, the keys are the indexes: (contains? [:a :b :c] 1) = true. - James -- -- 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.
Re: Regarding Clojure's license
2013/11/12 Kalinni Gorzkis musicdenotat...@gmail.com That violates the principle of free software. License incompatibilities like this divide the open-source community. Please change. Said principle of free software is not well defined. The open source community is already widely divided in case you did not notice: there are 4-5 commonly used open source licenses, and no common agreement about what free is supposed to mean. -- MK http://github.com/michaelklishin http://twitter.com/michaelklishin -- -- 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.
Re: Regarding Clojure's license
Le mardi 12 novembre 2013, James Reeves a écrit :
On 12 November 2013 16:26, Phillip Lord
phillip.l...@newcastle.ac.ukjavascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
'phillip.l...@newcastle.ac.uk');
wrote:
While we are talking, does anyone know why (contains? [:a :b :c] :b)
returns false?
This would be better placed in its own thread I think, but it's because
the contains? function checks for the presence of keys, not values. In a
vector, the keys are the indexes: (contains? [:a :b :c] 1) = true.
Shhh, you're killing the purpose of the question to maintain high volume on
the mailing list by unveiling the result too early !
As far as I'm concerned, I support Philip request.
Please fix the behavior of the contains? function.
- James
--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups Clojure group.
To post to this group, send email to
clojure@googlegroups.comjavascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
'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 javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
'clojure%2bunsubscr...@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 javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
'clojure%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com');.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
--
--
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.
Re: Regarding Clojure's license
James Reeves ja...@booleanknot.com writes:
On 12 November 2013 16:26, Phillip Lord phillip.l...@newcastle.ac.ukwrote:
While we are talking, does anyone know why (contains? [:a :b :c] :b)
returns false?
This would be better placed in its own thread I think, but it's because the
contains? function checks for the presence of keys, not values. In a
vector, the keys are the indexes: (contains? [:a :b :c] 1) = true.
(defn joke?
Returns true if an attempt at humour is present in the given
collection of words, otherwise returns false. Note that for internet
based collections of words, 'joke?' operates in polynomial time, and
often returns the wrong answer anyway.
{:added 1.6}
[content]
(. clojure.lang.RT (joke content)))
Phil
--
--
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.
Re: Regarding Clojure's license
sorry for nitpicking but Richard Stallman has spent some 35 years explaining/defining what is meant by free. I will not pretend that I know what all these licences say or even that I spend too much time deciding what license to use for my own code but at least a philosophical level, I stand by Stallman's definition. Jim On 12/11/13 16:40, Michael Klishin wrote: 2013/11/12 Kalinni Gorzkis musicdenotat...@gmail.com mailto:musicdenotat...@gmail.com That violates the principle of free software. License incompatibilities like this divide the open-source community. Please change. Said principle of free software is not well defined. The open source community is already widely divided in case you did not notice: there are 4-5 commonly used open source licenses, and no common agreement about what free is supposed to mean. -- MK http://github.com/michaelklishin http://twitter.com/michaelklishin -- -- 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. -- -- 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.
Re: Regarding Clojure's license
I'm afraid your jokes are a little too subtle for me, Phillip :)
- James
On 12 November 2013 17:01, Phillip Lord phillip.l...@newcastle.ac.ukwrote:
James Reeves ja...@booleanknot.com writes:
On 12 November 2013 16:26, Phillip Lord phillip.l...@newcastle.ac.uk
wrote:
While we are talking, does anyone know why (contains? [:a :b :c] :b)
returns false?
This would be better placed in its own thread I think, but it's because
the
contains? function checks for the presence of keys, not values. In a
vector, the keys are the indexes: (contains? [:a :b :c] 1) = true.
(defn joke?
Returns true if an attempt at humour is present in the given
collection of words, otherwise returns false. Note that for internet
based collections of words, 'joke?' operates in polynomial time, and
often returns the wrong answer anyway.
{:added 1.6}
[content]
(. clojure.lang.RT (joke content)))
Phil
--
--
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.
--
--
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.
Re: Regarding Clojure's license
On Tuesday, November 12, 2013 11:30:23 AM UTC-5, Sean Corfield wrote: It's also worth pointing out that a lot of US companies won't use GPL-licensed software (and won't pay for a closed source version), and many aren't comfortable with LGPL either. I don't see why a company would have any problem at all with *using* LGPL'd software, even in a product. However, I can see the possible complaints if they wanted to *modify* it and then distribute their modified version (since that would then require distributing the modified source along with it). -- -- 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.
Re: Regarding Clojure's license
On Tuesday, November 12, 2013 11:40:53 AM UTC-5, Michael Klishin wrote: 2013/11/12 Kalinni Gorzkis musicde...@gmail.com javascript: That violates the principle of free software. License incompatibilities like this divide the open-source community. Please change. Said principle of free software is not well defined. The open source community is already widely divided in case you did not notice: there are 4-5 commonly used open source licenses, and no common agreement about what free is supposed to mean. At http://docs.python-guide.org/en/latest/writing/license/, you'll find what I think is a good and very brief summary of the overall situation. And, as Jim alludes to, lots more specifics are available at http://www.fsf.org/licensing/ and http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/, where this stuff has been well-defined for ages. :) -- -- 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.
Re: Regarding Clojure's license
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.
Re: Regarding Clojure's license
On Wed, 13 Nov 2013, musicdenotat...@gmail.com wrote: 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/ too I am personally a big proponent of the GPL, but this is NOT the way to do advocacy. Please stop embarrassing yourself and aggravating others by continuing this approach. Paul Snyder -- -- 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.
Re: Regarding Clojure's license
Vote for you, Man!!! On Tuesday, November 12, 2013 5:55:00 PM UTC+8, Kalinni Gorzkis wrote: To Rich Hickey: Why did you choose the Eclipse Public License for Clojure? 1. How did you make your license selection? 2. What advantages does the EPL have over other free/open-source software licenses such as GPL, LGPL, BSD, MIT, Apache, at least for the Clojure project? -- -- 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.
