On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 9:51 PM, Sean Corfield <seancorfi...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 6:39 PM, Ken Wesson <kwess...@gmail.com> wrote: >> It says "Transfer of a right on a nonexclusive basis does not require >> a written agreement". As long as Clojure gets a worldwide, >> nonexclusive, royalty-free license with EPL-compatible redistribution >> terms, that ought to be good enough, shouldn't it? > > That made me pull up the Clojure CA and it is worded in terms of > 'non-exclusive' so it would seem that a written agreement is not > actually _required_ by US law, at least insofar as the copyright > portion is concerned. The CA also covers patents and some other things > and I'm not inclined to go research that aspect of law. > > Frankly, I think more time is spent discussing the pros and cons of > the CA than would actually be spent just filling it in and mailing it > off to Rich... If someone really feels signing and mailing an > agreement is "too much work" then they don't seem very committed to > contributing, IMO. It's really not much of a hardship is it?
Perhaps. But it's well known that any barrier to participation causes a percentage drop in same. -- 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
