3 ms·

There was some discussion about going with the GPL on the mailing list: https://groups.google.com/d/msg/light-table-discussion/5YscXFxTLRE/Ruh5Rxs3jj4J https://

by ibdknox 13y ago

There was some discussion about going with the GPL on the mailing list: https://groups.google.com/d/msg/light-table-discussion/5YscXFxTLRE/Ruh5Rxs3jj4J https://groups.google.com/d/msg/light-table-discussion/5YscX... If you have different needs, shoot us an email and I'm sure we can work something out.

michaelsbradley 13y ago
For what it's worth, the EPL is as amenable as the GPL is to the copyright holder's offering the option of a paid, non-reciprocal "commercial license". So, given that's the case, the real question comes down to how long you want or need the fangs of the license's reciprocal clauses to be. I personally have no problem with copyleft, and will be taking the EPL + commercial option route with one of my own projects in the near future. I realize that monetization strategies are a big deal if you're essentially trying to "pay the bills" with your open source project. I can't help thinking, though, that choosing the GPL when the vast majority of the Clojure ecosystem is under the EPL - and given that the two licenses are incompatible - is a misstep. I hope to be proved wrong. :-)
dkersten 13y ago
I'm sure we can work something out Its been mentioned elsewhere here, but you should probably think about having copyright assignment before accepting third party (non-plugin) patches, so that you can continue to work something out with people in the future too.
- ibdknox 13y ago
  We have a CA as well, adapted from Twitter's: https://docs.google.com/a/kodowa.com/forms/d/1ME_PT6qLKUcALUEz1h1yerLF7vP_Rnohpb9RvMLDALg/viewform https://docs.google.com/a/kodowa.com/forms/d/1ME_PT6qLKUcALU...
lemming 13y ago
One question (from above in the mass of licensing argument) according to Wikipedia the EPL is incompatible with the GPL: The EPL 1.0 is not compatible with the GPL, and a work created by combining a work licensed under the GPL with a work licensed under the EPL cannot be lawfully distributed. ClojureScript itself is EPL, how does this work?

by ibdknox 13y ago

michaelsbradley 13y ago

For what it's worth, the EPL is as amenable as the GPL is to the copyright holder's offering the option of a paid, non-reciprocal "commercial license". So, given that's the case, the real question comes down to how long you want or need the fangs of the license's reciprocal clauses to be. I personally have no problem with copyleft, and will be taking the EPL + commercial option route with one of my own projects in the near future. I realize that monetization strategies are a big deal if you're essentially trying to "pay the bills" with your open source project. I can't help thinking, though, that choosing the GPL when the vast majority of the Clojure ecosystem is under the EPL - and given that the two licenses are incompatible - is a misstep. I hope to be proved wrong. :-)

dkersten 13y ago

I'm sure we can work something out Its been mentioned elsewhere here, but you should probably think about having copyright assignment before accepting third party (non-plugin) patches, so that you can continue to work something out with people in the future too.

ibdknox 13y ago
We have a CA as well, adapted from Twitter's: https://docs.google.com/a/kodowa.com/forms/d/1ME_PT6qLKUcALUEz1h1yerLF7vP_Rnohpb9RvMLDALg/viewform https://docs.google.com/a/kodowa.com/forms/d/1ME_PT6qLKUcALU...

lemming 13y ago

One question (from above in the mass of licensing argument) according to Wikipedia the EPL is incompatible with the GPL: The EPL 1.0 is not compatible with the GPL, and a work created by combining a work licensed under the GPL with a work licensed under the EPL cannot be lawfully distributed. ClojureScript itself is EPL, how does this work?