On Nov 5, 4:13 pm, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Nov 5, 12:00 pm, Mibu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Why can't we debate whether a license is needed at all for a
> > free project?
> > (Too idealistic? Hey, it's a flame war. Just playing by the rules...)
>
> This is sounding awfully trollish of you. I didn't start this thread
> to cause a "flame war". My apologies to Rich and others if it seemed
> that way. I genuinely care about removing barriers to open source
> interoperability. My motives are pure.
>
I'll grant that as true, and would like to end the current discussion
for now, as it's gone on pretty long and has run out of productive
content. This list has been free of 'wars' and I'd like to keep it
that way.
Here's where I stand with Clojure's licensing:
For the short term, it's going to remain CPL.
The next likely candidate would be EPL, CPL's successor, in wide use
by Eclipse et al, and acceptable to Google Code. If the EPL and GPL
folks can hammer out compatibility, great. Until then, I'll not let it
become my problem.
I will not be using any 'customized' license. Using a well known
license intact is the only way to make it easy for users to vet the
license for use. Anything else requires lawyers for me and them.
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.
Thanks to all for your opinions - let's move on.
Rich
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
