Michael Klishin writes: > My point was "at least try to find a new maintainer". Don't let it rot.
I see where you're coming from, but there's definitely a place for phasing out a project gracefully. The majority of projects will have no users outside the original author, and that's fine. There are even cases where it's best for a widely-used library to pass on the torch and have its users migrate to an alternative that's widely understood to be superior. (clojure-json, noir, even monolithic clojure-contrib arguably, etc) So it's not quite as black and white as the post makes it sound. However, just spluttering out and going dark is obviously not what you want; if there's a transition to be done it must be clearly communicated. Anyway, everything else about the post appears solid except for one thing. It recommends the MIT license, which has no patent protection whatsoever; this could open you and your users up to liabilities in ways that are impossible to predict given that the United States Patent Office's tendency to grant patents without examining them first. So I strongly caution against using licenses which don't include patent grant clauses unless it's for throw-away code. While the Apache license can be annoying in all the boilerplate it requires, at least it doesn't have this problem. -Phil
pgpyizhRbgG5I.pgp
Description: PGP signature
