On Thu, 14 Nov 2013, Korny Sietsma wrote:
> > any sufficiently poorly worded argument is indistinguishable from
> > trolling.
>
> Is that original? I want to quote it. A lot.
Heh. The reaction was spontaneous and the phrasing is my own. I wasn't
thinking about Poe's Law at the time, but it's som
To me, this section appears to be about the LGPL library; so if you are
using an LGPL library, you cannot obsfucate in your (possibly modified)
version of it, nor prevent people debugging the library.
Sounds to me like jobsworth lawyers -- either they can spend time
understand something or they c
This is musicdenotat...@gmail.com. I wasn't able to post from that account.
If I have been banned, then listen to my apology:
This user does not intend to disrupt or deface this forum or the Clojure
community. He is just trying to get the Clojure's license changed. This
topic has been discussed
Although it's definitely difficult to understand, it says "You may convey a
Combined Work under terms of your choice that, taken together, effectively
do not restrict modification of the portions of the Library contained in
the Combined Work and reverse engineering for debugging such
modifications"
On Wednesday, November 13, 2013 6:06:02 PM UTC-5, Colin Fleming wrote:
> > I don't see why a company would have any problem at all with *using*
> > LGPL'd software, even in a product. However, I can see the possible
> > complaints if they wanted to *modify* it and then distribute their
modified
>
> any sufficiently poorly worded argument is indistinguishable from
trolling.
Is that original? I want to quote it. A lot.
- Korny
On 14 Nov 2013 01:42, "Paul L. Snyder" wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Nov 2013, Phillip Lord wrote:
>
> > "Paul L. Snyder" writes:
> >
> > > On Wed, 13 Nov 2013, musicdenotat
At least one company (mine at the time) had a problem with using LGPL
software because of the clause where you explicitly allow reverse
engineering of your product in order to use a different version of the LGPL
library. That's enough to give any corporate lawyer the screaming heebie
jeebies, not t
On Wed, 13 Nov 2013, Phillip Lord wrote:
> "Paul L. Snyder" writes:
>
> > On Wed, 13 Nov 2013, musicdenotat...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> >> spirit and purpose. It's true that authors of FOSS want to get
> >> contribution from others, but you can't force others to work for you, or
> >> to do someth
Hi,
Not only your tone is inappropriate but you seem to really expect
that the license scheme will change after nearly 6 years ?
On what basis ? Your "legal" advice ? Against what we have all been
experiencing in the last six years ?
Please do us a favor, do some readings first before posting
"Paul L. Snyder" writes:
> On Wed, 13 Nov 2013, musicdenotat...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> spirit and purpose. It's true that authors of FOSS want to get
>> contribution from others, but you can't force others to work for you, or
>> to do something that would potentially benefit you. Rich Hickey says
phillip.l...@newcastle.ac.uk (Phillip Lord) writes:
> I did consider the possibility that it just wasn't funny!
Oh, no – it was hilarious. :-)
-Marshall
--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Clojure" group.
To post to this group, send email to clojur
I did consider the possibility that it just wasn't funny!
James Reeves writes:
> I'm afraid your jokes are a little too subtle for me, Phillip :)
>
> - James
>
>
> On 12 November 2013 17:01, Phillip Lord wrote:
>
>> James Reeves writes:
>>
>> > On 12 November 2013 16:26, Phillip Lord > >wrot
Vote for you, Man!!!
On Tuesday, November 12, 2013 5:55:00 PM UTC+8, Kalinni Gorzkis wrote:
>
> To Rich Hickey:
> Why did you choose the Eclipse Public License for Clojure?
> 1. How did you make your license selection?
> 2. What advantages does the EPL have over other free/open-source
On Wed, 13 Nov 2013, musicdenotat...@gmail.com wrote:
> spirit and purpose. It's true that authors of FOSS want to get
> contribution from others, but you can't force others to work for you, or
> to do something that would potentially benefit you. Rich Hickey says that
> it does not make sense to
My last post:
Humorously, Rich Hickey's choice of the EPL reminds me of the GPL. Both
licenses (EPL as used in Clojure and GPL as written) are intended to make
modifications usable by the original author. However:
1. You can already create proprietary versions of Clojure;
2. Rich avoided the GPL'
On Tuesday, November 12, 2013 11:40:53 AM UTC-5, Michael Klishin wrote:
>
> 2013/11/12 Kalinni Gorzkis >
>
>> That violates the principle of free software. License incompatibilities
>> like this divide the open-source community. Please change.
>
>
> Said "principle of free software" is not well de
On Tuesday, November 12, 2013 11:30:23 AM UTC-5, Sean Corfield wrote:
>
> It's also worth
> pointing out that a lot of US companies won't use GPL-licensed
> software (and won't pay for a closed source version), and many aren't
> comfortable with LGPL either.
>
I don't see why a company would h
I'm afraid your jokes are a little too subtle for me, Phillip :)
- James
On 12 November 2013 17:01, Phillip Lord wrote:
> James Reeves writes:
>
> > On 12 November 2013 16:26, Phillip Lord >wrote:
> >
> >> While we are talking, does anyone know why (contains? [:a :b :c] :b)
> >> returns false
sorry for nitpicking but Richard Stallman has spent some 35 years
explaining/defining what is meant by "free". I will not pretend that I
know what all these licences say or even that I spend too much time
deciding what license to use for my own code but at least a
philosophical level, I stand
James Reeves writes:
> On 12 November 2013 16:26, Phillip Lord wrote:
>
>> While we are talking, does anyone know why (contains? [:a :b :c] :b)
>> returns false?
>>
>
> This would be better placed in its own thread I think, but it's because the
> contains? function checks for the presence of keys
Le mardi 12 novembre 2013, James Reeves a écrit :
> On 12 November 2013 16:26, Phillip Lord
> 'phillip.l...@newcastle.ac.uk');>
> > wrote:
>
>> While we are talking, does anyone know why (contains? [:a :b :c] :b)
>> returns false?
>>
>
> This would be better placed in its own thread I think, but
2013/11/12 Kalinni Gorzkis
> That violates the principle of free software. License incompatibilities
> like this divide the open-source community. Please change.
Said "principle of free software" is not well defined. The open source
community is already widely divided in case you did not notice
On 12 November 2013 16:26, Phillip Lord wrote:
> While we are talking, does anyone know why (contains? [:a :b :c] :b)
> returns false?
>
This would be better placed in its own thread I think, but it's because the
contains? function checks for the presence of keys, not values. In a
vector, the key
As James said, you've misunderstood the rationale. It's also worth
pointing out that a lot of US companies won't use GPL-licensed
software (and won't pay for a closed source version), and many aren't
comfortable with LGPL either. EPL, Apache and others are more
acceptable to many commercial organiz
I think his main intention was to keep the traffic up on the Clojure
mailing list. It's important for any new(ish) language to have good
stats on mailing list traffic, and the decision to use EPL results in
regular "why, why, why?" threads.
While we are talking, does anyone know why (contains? [:
On 12 November 2013 15:17, Kalinni Gorzkis wrote:
> Thus, Rich Hickey's choice of the EPL has the same rationale as the GPL.
> That violates the principle of free software. License incompatibilities
> like this divide the open-source community. Please change.
>
You've misunderstood what the ratio
"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."
1. First, the license allow proprietary derivative works anyway.
2. Th
There are answers to some related questions that have been discussed in
previous discussions in this group. For example, the last time the
question of the license arose, Sean Corfield pointed at the following
discussion involving Rich Hickey from 2008:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/
You may wish to look at this post:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/clojure/bpnKr88rvt8/VIeYR6vFztAJ
- James
On 12 November 2013 09:55, wrote:
> To Rich Hickey:
> Why did you choose the Eclipse Public License for Clojure?
> 1. How did you make your license selection?
> 2. What advantages does
To Rich Hickey:
Why did you choose the Eclipse Public License for Clojure?
1. How did you make your license selection?
2. What advantages does the EPL have over other free/open-source software
licenses such as GPL, LGPL, BSD, MIT, Apache, at least for the Clojure project?
--
--
You received thi
30 matches
Mail list logo
