>Also, imagining that you would have a contribution to make to Clojure, and you'd really want to make it (because you work with it everyday for example). This

>Also, imagining that you would have a contribution to make to Clojure, and you'd really want to make it (because you work with it everyday for example). This is part of the reason that I don't work with Clojure any more. (Mostly I just moved on to other things. But it's making me less inclined to come back.) I once found a bug in clojure.contrib.lazy-xml library. It was a simple one-line fix[1], but I didn't know if I could email someone and say, "hey, here's a bugfix for you, please apply it" because I hadn't signed a CA. Instead I settled for reporting it on the Google group. I might have mentioned the specific change that needed to be made, I don't remember. But I got no response, and settled for just patching my local copy whenever it was updated. (It hasn't been updated since July; the bug still exists.) I'm actually confident that there is no legal reason why my patch couldn't be applied without me signing a CA. It's an obvious fix which anyone else would write in the same way. But I'm not confident that the maintainers would agree, and a one-line patch doesn't merit the possibility for a protracted back-and-forth. So the legal barriers create social barriers which are even more restrictive. I don't want to sign a CA, and I don't want to be in a similar situation with a nontrivial bug. If I resume working with Clojure, I might find myself having to choose one or the other. So I don't plan to. Which is a shame: I rather liked the language. [1] http://philh.net/lazy_xml.clj http://philh.net/lazy_xml.clj