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. --J. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
