Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Rich Hickey stops Clojure funding appeal from 2011 onwards

clojure.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–77 of 77 posts

Re: Rich Hickey stops Clojure funding appeal from 2011 onwards

#71

Post by Waywocket »

ghshephard wrote: post #62
Waywocket wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

Re: "other example" - SQLite is a pretty good example of an OpenSource (Hell, public domain) project requiring a CA: http://www.sqlite.org/copyright.html And, if you work for a company, they, too require a snail mail copyright release.

I'm starting to wonder if anyone's even bothering to read what I'm writing. You've pointed out yet another example of a project which does not require a postal form, supporting my position. Requiring a disclaimer for works for hire isn't even comparable.

Edit: now that I've had my morning cup of tea, I've properly read that link - SQLite doesn't even require any form of contributor agreement, so all you're pointing out is that they require a company to agree that work done on their time is free to be contributed by the employee. That isn't the same thing at all.

Re: Rich Hickey stops Clojure funding appeal from 2011 onwards

#72

Post by Waywocket »

fogus wrote: post #60
Waywocket wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

If you honestly think there's a way they could plausibly have made it harder, start by naming a project which has a higher barrier to entry.

Re: Rich Hickey stops Clojure funding appeal from 2011 onwards

#73

Post by lispm »

zaph0d wrote: post #68
huwigs wrote: 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#.

The Jon Harrop who used to hang out on the Clojure list is not the same as Dr. John Harrop who used to advocate F#, OCaml, etc. I asked him and he said "no relation".

Not really: Jon Harrop is the troll and John Harrop probably not.

Re: Rich Hickey stops Clojure funding appeal from 2011 onwards

#74

Post by access_denied »

sandGorgon wrote: post #67
EliAndrewC wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder whether most donors actually understand this, with non-donors being the primary complainers. Randy Milholland, the webcomic artist behind Something Positive, quit his job and funded himself for a year with donations to spend more time on his comics. When his output was still less-than-daily, he got a flood of complaints. "We gave you money and you're still not updating as often as you promised!" When he offe…

interesting point - I think people who "donate" do it out of gratitude rather than creation of entitlement. By virtue of that, the complainers are less likely to come from the actual donor list. My empirical evidence comes from the Cyanogenmod Android project - where "when can I haz gingerbread" or "this sucks - why arent you spending enough time fixing " is always from non donors. NOTE: it is easy to see this trend…

To your last point: I think this happens because when donating you put a "price tag" on your actions. You will not want to spoil that for a silly flame.

Re: Rich Hickey stops Clojure funding appeal from 2011 onwards

#75

Post by fogus »

Waywocket wrote: post #72
fogus wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

If you honestly think there's a way they could plausibly have made it harder, start by naming a project which has a higher barrier to entry.

I couldn't care less what other projects require. If I am excited enough about contributing to them then I will do so regardless of the barrier.

Re: Rich Hickey stops Clojure funding appeal from 2011 onwards

#76

Post by masterponomo »

lispm wrote: post #73
zaph0d wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Jon Harrop who used to hang out on the Clojure list is not the same as Dr. John Harrop who used to advocate F#, OCaml, etc. I asked him and he said "no relation".

Not really: Jon Harrop is the troll and John Harrop probably not.

Ah, my mistake, I didn't notice the difference in name spelling. It was indeed John Harrop, not Jon Harrop, who appeared to vanish from Clojure after the licensing discussion. I should have made my point without reference to individuals.

Re: Rich Hickey stops Clojure funding appeal from 2011 onwards

#77

Post by Waywocket »

zaph0d wrote: post #65
Waywocket wrote: post #50

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…

FYI, Free Software Foundation has always required contributors to GNU projects to assign copyright to FSF. Back in the day, you needed to send it via snail mail, but now AFAIK, FSF sends the package to you which you have to sign and return (via snailmail). Cite - http://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain/html_node/Legal-Matters.htm... http://www.dreamsongs.com/IHE/IHE-110.html

I wasn't aware that the FSF agreement needed to be physically posted, so thank you for pointing that out.

I will point out in return that their requirements have indeed caused a number of forks (some of which ended up being merged back in without copyright assignment TTBOMK) and acrimonious arguments despite giving strong legal assurances to the contributor that the FSF will only use the assignment for a few limited purposes.

The fact that it requires physical transfer of document stands though, so I'm satisfied that you have actually read what I wrote rather than dismissing it out of hand, and will hence shut up on the topic :P.

Post reply on HN