On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 7:57 AM, Jan Rychter <j...@rychter.com> wrote:
> > Tassilo Horn <tass...@member.fsf.org> writes: > [...] > > BTW: What's the reason that Clojure is licensed under the EPL and the > > contrib stuff under CPL? Since clojure is not really eclipse-related, I > > don't see a good rationale. IMHO, the Lesser GPL would be a much better > > fit. Then you can use clojure also in commercial apps (I guess that was > > the rationale behind EPL), but still you can use it in projects with any > > other free-software license, may it be EPL, GPL or whatever... > > The GPL and LGPL are very restrictive licenses. While most people only > focus on the source code availability issue, the real show-stopper for > most commercial usage is the anti-patent clause that exists in both the > GPL and LGPL. This clause is a potential landmine, even though little > attention is paid to it. It exists in the same form in both the GPL and > LGPL. Version 3 only, and according to http://news.cnet.com/FSF-rebuts-anti-GPL-3-claims/2100-7344_3-6119987.html "The Linux programmers also expressed concern that a new patent provision in the draft GPL 3 poses risks to corporations' patent portfolios--a concern shared by Hewlett-Packard. The foundation said that interpretation is incorrect. The GPL 3 "simply says that if someone has a patent covering XYZ, and distributes a GPL-covered program to do XYZ, he can't sue the program's subsequent users, redistributors and improvers for doing XYZ with their own versions of that program," the foundation said. "This has no effect on other patents which that program does not implement."" Which means it only affects software patents (which have just been rendered invalid by in re Bilski anyway) and only to the extent of indemnifying users and distributors of a GPL-covered program from infringement claims arising from the use and distribution of that code. If they, say, infringed an HP patent on print head design making a laser printer they'd not be covered; HP could still sue. It no more affects a company's important patents than any version affects a company's important copyrights. It just stops them extending same to the GPL'd code and making it effectively proprietary. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
