On Nov 5, 5:53 pm, Matthias Benkard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Nov 5, 3:33 pm, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Are you sure? You're not modifying the clojure source, so you're not
> > creating a derivative work. I would think you can create a GPL
> > licensed library in that case.
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 sound
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
On Nov 5, 6:55 am, Konrad Hinsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I agree. Can anyone cite a single lawsuit concerning an inappropriate
> mix of licenses?
Usually these license issues get resolved before court. The fact is
that it is illegal to combine CPL and GPL code in certain manners.
Doing
> I don't renounce ownership rights at all, not even for intellectual
> property. I just think "free" software licenses are useless at best
> and counterproductive at worst when applied to projects that are
> supposed to be free.
Free software needs a license if it's going to be adopted by
organi
On Wednesday 05 November 2008 12:30, Mibu wrote:
> > Unless perhaps it is that you renounce all notions of ownership,
> > perhaps only for intellectual property. You're entitled to that
> > viewpoint, of course, but don't expect to find many technologists
> > to share such a view.
>
> I don't reno
> Unless perhaps it is that you renounce all notions of ownership,
> perhaps only for intellectual property. You're entitled to that
> viewpoint, of course, but don't expect to find many technologists to
> share such a view.
I don't renounce ownership rights at all, not even for intellectual
prop
On Wednesday 05 November 2008 12:00, Mibu wrote:
> I love it how developers talk about legal issues as if they were
> software issues: license compatibility, backward compatibility, dual-
> licensing, license interop, adherence to license clauses, migration
> to a different license, forking of lic
I love it how developers talk about legal issues as if they were
software issues: license compatibility, backward compatibility, dual-
licensing, license interop, adherence to license clauses, migration to
a different license, forking of licenses, license features, supporting
a license or license
On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 12:53 PM, Matthias Benkard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Nov 5, 3:33 pm, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>> Are you sure? You're not modifying the clojure source, so you're not
>> creating a derivative work. I would think you can create a GPL
>> licensed
On Nov 5, 3:33 pm, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Are you sure? You're not modifying the clojure source, so you're not
> creating a derivative work. I would think you can create a GPL
> licensed library in that case.
I can, but noone else will be allowed to redistribute it or wo
On Nov 5, 2008, at 0:49, Mibu wrote:
> You do know these licenses only hold in the litigious USA and some of
> its subsidiaries? Even there, they're practically unenforceable. In
> other places, developers usually ignore this red herring legal mambo
> jumbo and just use the technology. Common law
On Nov 4, 4:37 pm, Matthias Benkard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> The CPL doesn't allow me to choose the GPL. Instead, it forces me to
> apply a CPL-compatible, GPL-like license -- a thing which may or may
> not currently exist, but which will certainly make my library useless
> to almost everyb
On Tuesday 04 November 2008 17:21, r wrote:
> ...
>
> OTOH, what is this incompatibility really about? If I include a GPL
> library and publish my code under CPL, the source code is still
> there, isn't it?
It's about how much control you retain over your own work once you
publish it. GPL has st
On Tuesday 04 November 2008 17:33, r wrote:
> ...
>
> I've just found the "GUI builder and Clojure" thread - it looks like
> CPL is fine with Qt Jambi due to explicit GPL exceptions. Still, if
> someone could explain me what this GPL/CPL incompatibility is about
> (in general case, without excepti
On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 1:21 AM, r <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> The (only GPL) library I'm interested in is Qt Jambi, currently
> distributed under a commercial license and GPL. I guess LGPL is way
> too liberal for Trolltech/Nokia.
I've just found the "GUI builder and Clojure" thread - it looks
On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 12:35 PM, Rich Hickey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I would turn it around and say - if there is something you want to
> combine with Clojure that is GPL why don't you ask them to make it
> LGPL instead, in which case there would be no problem? The problem
> lies with GPL.
Hello.
I came over to see what Clojure is all about and the first thing I see
is a license flame war. So I thought to myself, why not chime in?
You do know these licenses only hold in the litigious USA and some of
its subsidiaries? Even there, they're practically unenforceable. In
other places,
Rich
I didn't see any reply to the suggestion to simply negate the choice
of law clause. That seems to be the *only* reason this thread (and
future threads like it) exist/will exist. I'm just saying it may not
be a hill worth dying for so to speak.
Chris
--~--~-~--~~~--
Shouldn't this flame-bait thread stop now ? Guys, you're just annoying
people interested in getting things done!
Get a beer! And if you're an American, go out and vote!
- Akhilesh
On Nov 4, 10:40 pm, Matthias Benkard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Nov 4, 6:12 pm, Rich Hickey <[EMAIL PROTECTED
On Nov 4, 5:51 pm, Alec Berryman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I looked into writing an application in Clojure that 1) uses
> libraries licensed under the GPL with the classpath exception and 2) is
> licensed under the GPL itself. I concluded that 1 is OK, and that 2
> works, as long as you have a
On Nov 4, 6:12 pm, Rich Hickey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The CPL doesn't allow me to choose the GPL.
>
> You've got this completely backwards - the GPL doesn't allow you to
> combine with certain things, whereas the CPL is fine with it.
I know that, but the fact is, the GPL has been widely
On Nov 4, 1:35 pm, Rich Hickey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So far, you are only the third person to complain about lack of GPL
> compatibility.
For the sake of balance, I _am_ actually concerned about the CPL
because it effectively denies developers the freedom to be politically
unneutral.
Let'
On Nov 4, 2008, at 11:37 AM, Matthias Benkard wrote:
>
> On Nov 4, 1:35 pm, Rich Hickey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> So far, you are only the third person to complain about lack of GPL
>> compatibility.
>
> For the sake of balance, I _am_ actually concerned about the CPL
> because it effectivel
Matthias Benkard on 2008-11-04 08:37:08 -0800:
> The CPL doesn't allow me to choose the GPL. Instead, it forces me to
> apply a CPL-compatible, GPL-like license -- a thing which may or may
> not currently exist, but which will certainly make my library useless
> to almost everybody because witho
On Nov 4, 1:11 am, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Nov 3, 12:36 pm, Matthias Benkard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Yes, it's worth worrying about. The problem is, you're going to have
> > the danger of fragmenting the Clojure user base.
>
> I think Clojure has potential t
Hello,
On Nov 3, 7:54 pm, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Nov 3, 5:35 am, J. Pablo Fernández <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > One thing that might be doable and acceptable is dual licensing. If
> > Clojure is realsed as CPL *and* GPL, it can be combined with GPL
> > programs a
On Nov 3, 12:36 pm, Matthias Benkard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yes, it's worth worrying about. The problem is, you're going to have
> the danger of fragmenting the Clojure user base.
I think Clojure has potential to become *very much* more well known
and used.
Are we sure we want to risk go
On Nov 3, 7:59 pm, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm not advocating the GPL...only a GPL compatible license. Regarding
> the benefits to a dual license or reclicense, are you sure there
> *aren't* benefits? If it is easy to move to GPL compatibility, then
> is it worth worryin
On Sat, Nov 1, 2008 at 12:33 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> http://www.dwheeler.com/essays/gpl-compatible.html
>From that page, "it is possible that the CPL is compatible with GPL
version 3" Sounds like GPL-compatibility may be coming to us without
us having to change anyth
On Nov 2, 10:52 pm, "Mark H." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Nov 2, 10:31 pm, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > (There are examples of projects 'weakening' the GPL in various ways
> > to suit their needs.)
>
> Just out of curiosity (I don't have an interest in this partic
On Nov 3, 2:14 am, mritun <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Chris
>
> What said problem would moving to GPL solve ? Shouldn't we hear
> atleast a couple of benefits that may be derived from moving to GPL ?
> Are there (GPL) projects that clojure would benefit from incorporating
> directly into the
On Nov 3, 5:35 am, J. Pablo Fernández <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> One thing that might be doable and acceptable is dual licensing. If
> Clojure is realsed as CPL *and* GPL, it can be combined with GPL
> programs and it is not in any way more free than the CPL (say, like if
> you add BSD in the ba
One thing that might be doable and acceptable is dual licensing. If
Clojure is realsed as CPL *and* GPL, it can be combined with GPL
programs and it is not in any way more free than the CPL (say, like if
you add BSD in the bag). In that way you can keep GPLists happy and
still use CPL.
On Nov 1,
On Nov 3, 7:33 am, "Christian Vest Hansen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 2:11 AM, Rich Hickey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > MIT and BSD are not reciprocal licenses. I want a reciprocal license.
>
> What does it mean that a license is reciprocal?
>
I think in this case it mea
Hi Chris
What said problem would moving to GPL solve ? Shouldn't we hear
atleast a couple of benefits that may be derived from moving to GPL ?
Are there (GPL) projects that clojure would benefit from incorporating
directly into the base language compiler and/or libraries ? What are
they ? Are the
On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 2:11 AM, Rich Hickey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> MIT and BSD are not reciprocal licenses. I want a reciprocal license.
What does it mean that a license is reciprocal?
--
Venlig hilsen / Kind regards,
Christian Vest Hansen.
--~--~-~--~~~---~-
On Nov 2, 10:31 pm, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> (There are examples of projects 'weakening' the GPL in various ways
> to suit their needs.)
Just out of curiosity (I don't have an interest in this particular
issue at the moment so I'm not taking a side in this debate), what
James Reeves wrote:
> On Nov 2, 6:50 pm, Phlex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> is a program I am doing using
>> clojure considered as a derivative work ?
>>
>
> http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/6366
>
>
>
Thank you,
Sacha
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You
On Nov 2, 5:11 pm, Rich Hickey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I want a reciprocal license.
> But I don't want the license to apply to, or dictate anything about,
> non-derivative work that is combined with mine, as GPL does. I think
> doing so is fundamentally wrong.
It is your code and you are fre
On Nov 2, 7:12 pm, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Nov 2, 1:56 pm, ".Bill Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > For an earlier discussion of this same topic,
> > seehttp://groups.google.com/group/clojure/browse_thread/thread/735aa7f1c...
>
> > Bill
>
> I agree that GPL inc
On Nov 2, 1:56 pm, ".Bill Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> For an earlier discussion of this same topic,
> seehttp://groups.google.com/group/clojure/browse_thread/thread/735aa7f1c...
>
> Bill
I agree that GPL incompatibility isn't a concern for Clojure *users*.
It would be a practical proble
On Sunday 02 November 2008 16:04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Nov 2, 11:06 am, Randall R Schulz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > many projects and businesses, both
> > commercial and open-source, will categorically not use GPL-licensed
> > software in their projects.
>
> straw man again...
Please
On Nov 2, 3:28 pm, "a r" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Still, for me a dual CPL/LGPL license would be nicer. This is purely
> for practical reasons - Java itself going GPL, reusing (those few) GPL
> Java libraries or embeddingClojurecompiler in GPL applications (this
> might be OK with CPL, I'm
On Nov 2, 1:16 pm, Matthias Benkard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I would hate to seeclojureadopting the GPL.
>
> Certainly, something compatible with the GPL wouldn't have to be the
> GPL itself.
Thank you. True!
cs
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this mes
On Nov 2, 11:06 am, Randall R Schulz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> many projects and businesses, both
> commercial and open-source, will categorically not use GPL-licensed
> software in their projects.
straw man again.They will use a GPL compatible license like MIT
and BSD and many others.
I
On Nov 2, 10:52 am, jdz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2. I personally dislike GPL
Opinions about the GPL are straw men. No one is advocating
conversion to GPLjust a GPL compatible license.
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subs
I am not advocating Clojure move to the GPL!!! I don't want to fight
that battle.
However, a slight change to a GPL *compatible* license would be
*very* welcome
and I think benefit Clojure.
Chris
On Nov 2, 10:50 am, Phlex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > The biggest pr
On Sat, Nov 1, 2008 at 5:33 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hello. I am an open source programmer and fan of Clojure!
> I wanted to express my concern about your wonderful language project
> in the
> hopes it may help it succeed even more.
CPL is very liberal and I am pretty
For an earlier discussion of this same topic, see
http://groups.google.com/group/clojure/browse_thread/thread/735aa7f1cecf583/05885644fb78fea1?lnk=gst&q=+Common+Public+License+#05885644fb78fea1
Bill
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are s
> I would hate to see clojure adopting the GPL.
Certainly, something compatible with the GPL wouldn't have to be the
GPL itself.
(This doesn't mean I'd like to see Clojure's license changed. Just
wanted to clarify things.)
Matthias
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You rece
On Nov 2, 6:50 pm, Phlex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I would hate to see clojure adopting the GPL.
> About the CPL (clojure's license) : is a program I am doing using
> clojure considered as a derivative work ?
According to an article written by an attorney working for the Open
Source Initiative
On Saturday 01 November 2008 10:33, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> ...
>
> Are you really sure you want/need to use the Common Public License
> for your language? The biggest problem I see with this license is
> that it is not compatible with the GPL. This means a lot to many
> people and I would ha
On Nov 1, 7:33 pm, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Are you really sure you want/need to use the Common Public License for
> your
> language? The biggest problem I see with this license is that it is
> not
> compatible with the GPL. This means a lot to many people and I would
> h
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> The biggest problem I see with this license is that it is
> not
> compatible with the GPL.
I would hate to see clojure adopting the GPL.
About the CPL (clojure's license) : is a program I am doing using
clojure considered as a derivative work ?
Sacha
--~--~-
Hello. I am an open source programmer and fan of Clojure!
I wanted to express my concern about your wonderful language project
in the
hopes it may help it succeed even more.
Are you really sure you want/need to use the Common Public License for
your
language? The biggest problem I see with this
56 matches
Mail list logo
