Clojurians Log v2
google-cloud
@qqq I added UserService support and examples to the template and made a release to Clojars. https://github.com/nickbauman/cljgae-template/releases/tag/0.2.5-SNAPSHOT
@nickbaum: curently redesigning (physical) workspace; will look into it as soon as I get a chance
https://eclipse.org/legal/eplfaq.php#SOURCEWOBJ <-- oh boy, EPL doesn't work well with commercial use does it?
It appears that I'm not allowed to copy/paste parts of cljgetemplate for my app UNLESS I also make the source of my app available, which I'm not willing to do
any chance the license can be changed ito BSD or MIT ?
@qqq i don’t think that’s the correct interpretation of the epl. you have to distribute the changes you make to the epl’ed code, not your code.
@mobileink : i'm not a lawyer, but this seems gray area when I want to copy/paste parts of the code, make changes to it, and use it as a library in my code
I dont think EPL makes sense for code taht is a "lein template" as opposed to an actual library
@qqq (also @mobileink) — I’ll provide an experience report from corporate use of OSS: I worked at Macromedia/Adobe for years and, under Adobe at least, we had occasional “audits” of OSS in use at the company. My team used a framework that had skeleton code generation and the generated code was (implicitly) covered by the same license as the framework itself. Because you then built your app on top of that generated code, it was considered a sufficiently grey area that Adobe petitioned the project maintainers to relicense the framework under a more commercial-friendly license. Now, in terms of Leiningen (or Boot) templates, here’s how that would play out (differently): the template itself is usually EPL but the expectation is that the generated code is yours and can be under any license you want (the original lein templates made that very clear but subsequent 3rd party ones do not always do so). So, copying’n’pasting code from the template itself: yes, that’s EPL code and you’d be bound by that license. Copying’n’pasting code from the generated code: no, you can generate a skeleton app and change the license before you start.
Why would that be different to the situation I found myself in at Adobe? Because that framework generated code into its own context and was able to regenerate / update your modified code. The Leiningen (and Boot) templates generate code into a fresh context not covered by the original license, and expect you to modify that code.
(Note: IANAL — but I have had to sit down with the legal team and review this stuff and I’ve seen what they will concede and what they won’t)
Based on that, I would suggest that you ask @nickbauman if he’d be willing to add clarifying language to his template that the generated code be relicensable as users wish, and not bound to EPL (which would cover the template library itself).
Yeah I haven't thought about it much. My sense is that much of this could be cleaned up by moving out the library parts of the template into their own EPL'd repos and mark the template as BSD licensed.
This way if you make changes to the libraries you'd be encouraged to submit that back, plus those changes would be orthogonal to any business problem you're facing, so there would be no confusion as to where your incentives are. We'd be aligned: you get a better path to solve your business problems, the community gets a better foundation to write software.
That's the goal.
So this "librarying" thing is an issue in my issue tracker for a while now. Maybe it's time to move up its priority.