Live data from Hacker News

Rich Hickey stops Clojure funding appeal from 2011 onwards

clojure.org

51–60 of 77 posts

Re: Rich Hickey stops Clojure funding appeal from 2011 onwards

#51
post #34
post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

they'll have influence over you, wouldn't they? Only for the items relevant to the contract terms.

I don't think you understand what I'm saying. There's no terms at all in the donation-based giving, and yet people think they have influence. Contracts get renegotiated all the time. What would prevent Company XYZ from exerting pressure along the lines of "we want you to do [abc] or we're not renewing?" All I was originally saying was that I just feel he'll end up in the same situation. I'm not suggesting he can't sa…

The main difference is that things will be much simpler and clearer. He's being paid _exactly_ so the company can say "we want [abc]". If [abc]s get too big or not important enough for Rich, he can also stop renewing the contract.

Re: Rich Hickey stops Clojure funding appeal from 2011 onwards

#52

Rich: I am sorry that you did this. Please add the PayPal donate button back onto clojure.org. I never make large donations to open source projects, etc., but I give small $2 to $10 donations for things that I use. What this allows me to do is to contribute a modest $30 to $40 per year to projects that I use and not feel like a total freeloader.

AFAIK, he'll still accept paypal!

But, he had changed the paypal link on clojure.org/funding to go to clojure/core instead of himself. This was reflection of the changes to the clojure team, which seemed fair IMHO. I'm sad to see that pointing the donate link at clojure/core had unintended consequence of creating some sense of entitlement on the core group.

Re: Rich Hickey stops Clojure funding appeal from 2011 onwards

#53
post #49

From what I've seen, Rich does things to end controversies quickly rather than talk them to death. There was a religious war developing in the user group some time ago over licensing terms of products that were developed in Clojure. Rich didn't take a side, as I recall--he simply intervened after a few days and asked people not to carry on this discussion but to focus on technical issues. At least one heavyweight (Jo…

As a longtime Lisp observer, I can't say that I've ever seen Jon Harrop conduct himself as a "heavyweight" in forums unrelated to OCaml, Mathematica, or F#.

"heavyweight" was my opinion of him based on his education, demonstrated ability, and publications, not anything to do with his way of representing himself. I found his comments very interesting, informed as they were by his extensive work in other languages.

Re: Rich Hickey stops Clojure funding appeal from 2011 onwards

#54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How many other OSS projects have an exhaustive list on their website of everyone who is allowed to make contributions? That is a way of thanking contributors. If the question is, "How many other OSS projects require filing a CA before patches will be accepted?", then the answer is "many". viz. Many run by Oracle now (e.g. http://openjdk.java.net/contribute/ ), all apache projects AFAIK ( http://www.apache.org/licen…

Well let's see, the choice of license is a starting point. The EPL is, per se, a bad license (intentionally incompatible with the GPL and with the showstopping choice-of-venue clause), but it's ubiquitous in Java land so we'll let them off. In case you hadn't noticed, Oracle is widely considered to be an enemy of open source, so pointing out similarities with their processes isn't hugely helpful. In fact, contributor…

Sounds like you object to a variety of particulars that you just happen to disagree with. A fair bit shy of falling short of some kind of essential "spirit".

The OpenJDK CA process was put in place a long time ago by Sun, generally well-liked in open source circles last I knew. And I guess you've got the same problems with all of Apache, for example (which, BTW, requires a signed copy of their CA to be faxed, at a minimum -- and I suppose some would complain about the faxing). Rough spot, there.

IANAL, neither are you, and we weren't in the room when Rich talked to his. Even if those things weren't true, I'm pretty sure Rich (nor anyone else) would accede to derision by instead of nonspecific, unconstructive griping.

Re: Rich Hickey stops Clojure funding appeal from 2011 onwards

#55
post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is that really true though? If Company XYZ is your biggest support contract, they'll have influence over you, wouldn't they?

I assume Rich is selling exactly this. Company XYZ wants $hard_to_implement_feature. Company gives Rich money specifically so he'll implement $hard_to_implement_feature, and then they get $hard_to_implement_feature. An example of this was my department wanted a certain feature in the Moose library, so we offered to pay one of the developers to write it. Then it turned out we didn't actually have funding for this ("pa…

Rich has said many times that he will not do this. Clojure/core might, but rich does not want clojure to be influenced by the highest bidder, essentially the same as the donations i'm guessing. Rich is an advisor to clojure/core, but his purpose is to further clojure and community interest only. Of course this is my understanding of the matter, i don't speak for him.

Re: Rich Hickey stops Clojure funding appeal from 2011 onwards

#56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How many other OSS projects have an exhaustive list on their website of everyone who is allowed to make contributions? That is a way of thanking contributors. If the question is, "How many other OSS projects require filing a CA before patches will be accepted?", then the answer is "many". viz. Many run by Oracle now (e.g. http://openjdk.java.net/contribute/ ), all apache projects AFAIK ( http://www.apache.org/licen…

Well let's see, the choice of license is a starting point. The EPL is, per se, a bad license (intentionally incompatible with the GPL and with the showstopping choice-of-venue clause), but it's ubiquitous in Java land so we'll let them off. In case you hadn't noticed, Oracle is widely considered to be an enemy of open source, so pointing out similarities with their processes isn't hugely helpful. In fact, contributor…

[deleted]

Re: Rich Hickey stops Clojure funding appeal from 2011 onwards

#57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well let's see, the choice of license is a starting point. The EPL is, per se, a bad license (intentionally incompatible with the GPL and with the showstopping choice-of-venue clause), but it's ubiquitous in Java land so we'll let them off. In case you hadn't noticed, Oracle is widely considered to be an enemy of open source, so pointing out similarities with their processes isn't hugely helpful. In fact, contributor…

Sounds like you object to a variety of particulars that you just happen to disagree with. A fair bit shy of falling short of some kind of essential "spirit". The OpenJDK CA process was put in place a long time ago by Sun, generally well-liked in open source circles last I knew. And I guess you've got the same problems with all of Apache, for example (which, BTW, requires a signed copy of their CA to be faxed, at a mi…

>The OpenJDK CA process was put in place a long time ago by Sun, generally well-liked in open source circles last I knew.

Sun was never well liked outside of the Jave gated community. They - and their CA process - were used several times as examples in articles and presentations on 'how not to do open source' (eg. http://lwn.net/Articles/370157/ - 'How to destroy your community').

>And I guess you've got the same problems with all of Apache, for example (which, BTW, requires a signed copy of their CA to be faxed, at a minimum -- and I suppose some would complain about the faxing).

No, they accept e-mailing. See http://www.apache.org/licenses/icla.txt. I am indeed opposed to their CA requirement, but in this case it appears to be simply misguided rather than an attempt at creating a barrier.

>IANAL, neither are you, and we weren't in the room when Rich talked to his. Even if those things weren't true, I'm pretty sure Rich (nor anyone else) would accede to derision by instead of nonspecific, unconstructive griping.

I object very strongly to your dismissal of my position as 'nonspecific, unconstructive griping'. I'll try to restate it as plainly as possible:

No other example has been found of a project with this requirement. Given that there are a large number of both companies and non-profit organisations requiring CAs, none of which require a postal copy, it cannot be rationally argued that this is a legal requirement unless you are also willing to argue that all of those other companies are failing to show due diligence; I don't believe that argument would have any merit. Since Clojure has that requirement, the most plausible reason is that it is an attempt to erect as large a barrier as possible to participation (and the only other reason I can think up is that Rich Hickey is a paranoid of the tinfoil hat variety, but I've seen no other evidence of that). I cannot overstate enough how large a barrier this is; even those corporate OSS projects widely condemned for their failure at understanding the open source ideal (I've already mentioned Android; another example might be OpenOffice, most of whose developers recently decided enough was enough and jumped ship) don't make it this hard. The deliberate attempt to discourage community involvement is what I believe runs counter to the spirit of open source.

Re: Rich Hickey stops Clojure funding appeal from 2011 onwards

#58
post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a longtime Lisp observer, I can't say that I've ever seen Jon Harrop conduct himself as a "heavyweight" in forums unrelated to OCaml, Mathematica, or F#.

"heavyweight" was my opinion of him based on his education, demonstrated ability, and publications, not anything to do with his way of representing himself. I found his comments very interesting, informed as they were by his extensive work in other languages.

Jon Harrop is well known for his spamming work in Lisp and Haskell communities.

Re: Rich Hickey stops Clojure funding appeal from 2011 onwards

#59
post #2

Possible reason behind the decision - http://news.ycombinator.net/item?id=2053908

Combined with Hickey's post in that thread, this whole thing strikes me as rather petulant - "throwing the toys out of the pram" as the English would say.

Re: Rich Hickey stops Clojure funding appeal from 2011 onwards

#60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds like you object to a variety of particulars that you just happen to disagree with. A fair bit shy of falling short of some kind of essential "spirit". The OpenJDK CA process was put in place a long time ago by Sun, generally well-liked in open source circles last I knew. And I guess you've got the same problems with all of Apache, for example (which, BTW, requires a signed copy of their CA to be faxed, at a mi…

>The OpenJDK CA process was put in place a long time ago by Sun, generally well-liked in open source circles last I knew. Sun was never well liked outside of the Jave gated community. They - and their CA process - were used several times as examples in articles and presentations on 'how not to do open source' (eg. http://lwn.net/Articles/370157/ - 'How to destroy your community'). >And I guess you've got the same pro…

    it is an attempt to erect as large 
    a barrier as possible to participation
The "barrier" is only as tall as a postage stamp.
Post reply on HN