Being filed by the NSA ? Oups, too late :)
Luc P.
>
> Seriously? Your problem is that a contributor has to state that they
> have added something? Why are you worried about this?
>
> Musical Notation writes:
>
> >> Each Contributor must identify itself as the originator of its
> >> Contribut
Seriously? Your problem is that a contributor has to state that they
have added something? Why are you worried about this?
Musical Notation writes:
>> Each Contributor must identify itself as the originator of its Contribution,
>> if any, in a manner that reasonably allows subsequent Recipients
On Sat, Sep 14, 2013 at 5:31 PM, Musical Notation
wrote:
>> Each Contributor must identify itself as the originator of its Contribution,
>> if any, in a manner that reasonably allows subsequent Recipients to identify
>> the originator of the Contribution.
> That's my problem.
People are, of cours
> Each Contributor must identify itself as the originator of its Contribution,
> if any, in a manner that reasonably allows subsequent Recipients to identify
> the originator of the Contribution.
That's my problem.
On Sep 12, 2013, at 19:18, phillip.l...@newcastle.ac.uk (Phillip Lord) wrote:
>
This is an interesting thread. I think, though, it repeats what is a
misconception about GPL -- that you cannot produce GPL code using
Clojure. This isn't true, as far as I can see -- you can write GPL code
using any language, because it doesn't usage restrictions in GPL do not
percolate through a
I agree with Corfield and approaching things that seem wrong from a spirit
of curiosity, rather than defaulting to criticism is a better way to
improve understanding. You miss wonderful opportunities to learn when you
approach things like that.
On Wednesday, September 11, 2013 10:54:36 AM UTC-7
Considering that Rich himself chose the license more than 5 years ago, as you
can see on github looking at files under the 1.0 tag (not counting pre 1.0
releases)
and that you did not get him to lay down on a couch nearby while taking notes,
I think that your assumptions about his spirit are quite
Perhaps a more productive way to approach this issue would have been
to ask if the group could point you to a discussion of why Clojure is
under the EPL instead of starting from a point of criticism, and
challenging the care with which the license was selected?
Searching the archives would have tu
There are no plans to change the license.
On Wednesday, September 11, 2013 8:41:04 AM UTC-5, Kalinni Gorzkis wrote:
>
> I think that Clojure should switch to a better license with similar spirit
> like Apache 2.0, BSD, or MIT.
> While the EPL doesn't have the evil "copyleft" requirement of GPL,
The GPL incompatibility comes from the choice of law clauses I think.
It is worth mentioning though, that you can combine GPL code and
Clojure, since GPL has an exception for a "standard interface" of a
programming language. You can write GPL code in most languages, and this
does not require that
> It may have been chosen uncarefully. Other permissive licenses better
fulfill Rich Hickey's spirit.
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/clojure/TuojEIsu1G4
Rich Hickey choose the license himself. While you may disagree whether he
made the right choice, it is highly unlikely that Rich did so
AFAICT it has been chosen carefully, but you are of course free to
think otherwise
2013/9/11 Kalinni Gorzkis :
> I think that Clojure should switch to a better license with similar spirit
> like Apache 2.0, BSD, or MIT.
> While the EPL doesn't have the evil "copyleft" requirement of GPL, and
> t
I think that Clojure should switch to a better license with similar spirit like
Apache 2.0, BSD, or MIT.
While the EPL doesn't have the evil "copyleft" requirement of GPL, and
therefore allows and encourages commercial uses of the code, it has a
requirement that makes it incompatible with the GP
13 matches
Mail list logo
