I'm looking to publish a Clojure library and would like to release it under the MIT license. That said, I needed to modify some core specs so that `fn` and `defn` can properly roundtrip between conform and unform.
To do this, I copied the specs for `fn` and `defn` in my own code base, and modified them accordingly. >From what I understand of the EPL, modifications of EPL code must be re-licensed under the EPL as well, and what changes were made must be documented. But, normally (though the Google vs Oracle lawsuit might change that), function signatures are not considered copyrightable. When it comes to Spec, things get fuzzy for me, the spec is code, so it probably means it is under the EPL. That said, even if I specced `fn` and `defn` myself, starting from scratch, chances are I would end up with almost the same spec. In some way, a spec is like a function signature as well. So I'm not sure how to treat them. I believe my best bet right now is just either license my whole library under EPL, and document the changes I made to the core specs. Or to double license, move the specs into their own file with an EPL license, and license the rest under MIT. P.S.: Is it a bug that fn and defn specs can not roundtrip? -- 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. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/clojure/ba126443-0938-4284-8ccf-d9e866a95ed0%40googlegroups.com.
