6 ms·

> Clojure's license makes it a complete non starter for me, sorry. Live free or die. Can someone ELI5 this? Why is Clojure's license problematic?

yomly 6y ago
I am by no means an expert on things to do with licensing but Clojure is under Eclipse so IIRC if you distribute your code onto the user's machine they have a right to the source. This can make on-prem solutions for a product slightly hairy. Please feel free to correct me if this is inaccurate
- dkersten 6y ago
  > This can make on-prem solutions for a product slightly hairy. EPL has the restriction that if you distribute binaries, you have to make the source available (you must state in your license where to obtain it). It seems that listing your dependencies libraries and linking to their websites (which I think is good practice anyway even with less restrictive licenses) would be enough, as long as you didn’t modify them. EPL allows linked modules to be distributed under whatever license you want, so in a commercial product doesn’t apply to your closed source code or any libraries that choose not to be distributed under EPL. So for on prem distribution, you just need to include a license file that lists all of your EPL (or other licenses that require the license to be included like MIT) with a link to where to get the code. Your own code is unaffected. This isn’t GPL compatible, though, because GPL does “infect” linked modules too. However IANAL.
  - macmac 6y ago
    The problem with the EPL is that if your software is a derivative work of EPL licensed software, the EPL applies your software, including the obligation to provide access to the source of your software to the entities to which it is distributed. Determining if a work is a derivative work in software is far from straightforward. The EPL FAQ for instance points out that this might be an issue when using software that generates code.
    - phoe-krk 6y ago
      This is the reason why the Classpath exception exists for GPL. Perhaps EPL would also consider adding one?
    - kazinator 6y ago
      That cannot be the problem that the author of the submitted article has with the EPL, because the GPL is the same way.
      - macmac 6y ago
        No, I agree. I was pointing out a general challenge with the EPL that people tend to overlook. In the Clojure environment many use EPL for Clojure libraries, many without realising that it might, depending on your intentions, be an issue.
  - kazinator 6y ago
    > This isn’t GPL compatible, though, because GPL does “infect” linked modules too. I don't think that's the reason. The BSD license is GPL compatible, without infecting anything. EPL being GPL incompatible means that EPL-licensed pieces cannot be combined with GPL ones for whatever reason. The FSF claims that it is because of its "weak copyleft and choice of law clause". https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#EPL https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#EPL
kgwgk 6y ago
Not GPL-compatible: https://www.reddit.com/r/lisp/comments/hupqhn/the_many_faces_of_an_undying_programming_language/fyptih8/ https://www.reddit.com/r/lisp/comments/hupqhn/the_many_faces...
pjmlp 6y ago
Given the amount of surviving GPL software that still has some meaning, basically Linux kernel and GCC are the ones left, that reasoning won't hold for long.
- bzb3 6y ago
  Actually, that's a good point I hadn't thought of. The world has moved on from GPL to more free alternatives.
  - pjmlp 6y ago
    I wouldn't call the missing upstream improvements to LLVM and BSD from Sony, or Apple, thanks license, a more free alternative, but I digress.
    - dkersten 6y ago
      More free in the sense that you, the person making a derivative work or distributing the licensed software, have more freedom in what you can do. It’s not more free to your users unless you decide to license it to them under a similar license. The original authors not receiving your changes doesn’t seem to me to affect their freedom, even if it kinda sucks.
      - sahil-kang 6y ago
        I think the kind of licensing you’re referring to is usually called permissive licensing [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permissive_software_license https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permissive_software_license
        dkersten 6y ago
        I am merely stating that less restrictions = more freedom (ie more choices of what you can do) to the initial user. I'm also pointing out that this freedom of choices does not translate to downstream users since the previous user is free to choose to restrict it. GPL has less freedom (by virtue of adding restrictions on what can be done), but it does this to make sure all users have equal freedom. Some people value the higher freedom more, other people value the equality more. Separately, I was pointing out that contributing back upstream is a beneficial and nice thing to do, but is orthogonal to freedom. If anything, forcing it means there is less since the person loses the freedom to choose whether they wish to or not. I'm not judging which is better either, just pointing out the differences. Sometimes less freedom for the individual is better for the whole (to ensure equal freedom for all, or so changes are contributed back), we see it in society too: we give up personal freedom for the benefit of society as a whole.

yomly 6y ago

I am by no means an expert on things to do with licensing but Clojure is under Eclipse so IIRC if you distribute your code onto the user's machine they have a right to the source. This can make on-prem solutions for a product slightly hairy. Please feel free to correct me if this is inaccurate

dkersten 6y ago
> This can make on-prem solutions for a product slightly hairy. EPL has the restriction that if you distribute binaries, you have to make the source available (you must state in your license where to obtain it). It seems that listing your dependencies libraries and linking to their websites (which I think is good practice anyway even with less restrictive licenses) would be enough, as long as you didn’t modify them. EPL allows linked modules to be distributed under whatever license you want, so in a commercial product doesn’t apply to your closed source code or any libraries that choose not to be distributed under EPL. So for on prem distribution, you just need to include a license file that lists all of your EPL (or other licenses that require the license to be included like MIT) with a link to where to get the code. Your own code is unaffected. This isn’t GPL compatible, though, because GPL does “infect” linked modules too. However IANAL.
- macmac 6y ago
  The problem with the EPL is that if your software is a derivative work of EPL licensed software, the EPL applies your software, including the obligation to provide access to the source of your software to the entities to which it is distributed. Determining if a work is a derivative work in software is far from straightforward. The EPL FAQ for instance points out that this might be an issue when using software that generates code.
  - phoe-krk 6y ago
    This is the reason why the Classpath exception exists for GPL. Perhaps EPL would also consider adding one?
  - kazinator 6y ago
    That cannot be the problem that the author of the submitted article has with the EPL, because the GPL is the same way.
    - macmac 6y ago
      No, I agree. I was pointing out a general challenge with the EPL that people tend to overlook. In the Clojure environment many use EPL for Clojure libraries, many without realising that it might, depending on your intentions, be an issue.
- kazinator 6y ago
  > This isn’t GPL compatible, though, because GPL does “infect” linked modules too. I don't think that's the reason. The BSD license is GPL compatible, without infecting anything. EPL being GPL incompatible means that EPL-licensed pieces cannot be combined with GPL ones for whatever reason. The FSF claims that it is because of its "weak copyleft and choice of law clause". https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#EPL https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#EPL

kgwgk 6y ago

Not GPL-compatible: https://www.reddit.com/r/lisp/comments/hupqhn/the_many_faces_of_an_undying_programming_language/fyptih8/ https://www.reddit.com/r/lisp/comments/hupqhn/the_many_faces...

pjmlp 6y ago

Given the amount of surviving GPL software that still has some meaning, basically Linux kernel and GCC are the ones left, that reasoning won't hold for long.

bzb3 6y ago
Actually, that's a good point I hadn't thought of. The world has moved on from GPL to more free alternatives.
- pjmlp 6y ago
  I wouldn't call the missing upstream improvements to LLVM and BSD from Sony, or Apple, thanks license, a more free alternative, but I digress.
  - dkersten 6y ago
    More free in the sense that you, the person making a derivative work or distributing the licensed software, have more freedom in what you can do. It’s not more free to your users unless you decide to license it to them under a similar license. The original authors not receiving your changes doesn’t seem to me to affect their freedom, even if it kinda sucks.
    - sahil-kang 6y ago
      I think the kind of licensing you’re referring to is usually called permissive licensing [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permissive_software_license https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permissive_software_license
      - dkersten 6y ago
        I am merely stating that less restrictions = more freedom (ie more choices of what you can do) to the initial user. I'm also pointing out that this freedom of choices does not translate to downstream users since the previous user is free to choose to restrict it. GPL has less freedom (by virtue of adding restrictions on what can be done), but it does this to make sure all users have equal freedom. Some people value the higher freedom more, other people value the equality more. Separately, I was pointing out that contributing back upstream is a beneficial and nice thing to do, but is orthogonal to freedom. If anything, forcing it means there is less since the person loses the freedom to choose whether they wish to or not. I'm not judging which is better either, just pointing out the differences. Sometimes less freedom for the individual is better for the whole (to ensure equal freedom for all, or so changes are contributed back), we see it in society too: we give up personal freedom for the benefit of society as a whole.