since I assume we are moving away from a monolithic zip file?
Omnem crede diem tibi diluxisse supremum.
you can pull from mvn repo using ivy, etc. I use gradle to pull both
the current clojure and clojure-contrib all the time.
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "Clojure" group.
> To post to this group, send email to clo...@googlegroups.com
> Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> For more options, visit this group at
> The greatest impediment for me is having to sign a contract to
> participate in an open source project. I understand Rich Hickey and
> most of you guys live in the litigious US and have to cover
> yourselves, but I feel not right about this.
I've never run into a project - US-based or not - that required
this. At least not for reading the dev list or submitting patches.
If you don't trust the submitters to not sue you later, why do you
trust them to not check in back doors or time bombs?
O< ascii ribbon campaign - stop html mail - www.asciiribbon.org
This is probably not a good example; the copyright assignment policy
for OpenOffice has caused the active contributors to fork it into
LibreOffice, which does not have such a policy:
In my experience, it's pretty standard practice for any successful
open source project that expects to be used by large corporations.
"If you're not annoying somebody, you're not really alive."
-- Margaret Atwood
> On Oct 19, 7:01 pm, Mike Meyer <mwm-keyword-googlegroups.
> 620...@mired.org> wrote:
> > On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 15:51:17 -0700 (PDT)
> > Mibu <mibu.cloj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > The greatest impediment for me is having to sign a contract to
> > > participate in an open source project. I understand Rich Hickey and
> > > most of you guys live in the litigious US and have to cover
> > > yourselves, but I feel not right about this.
> > I've never run into a project - US-based or not - that required
> > this.
The ones I've checked or am familiar with apparently define
"contribute" differently than the clojure project does, in that they
allow you to both subscribe to the developer list(s) and submit bug
reports - including patches - without having to sign and post a
contributor agreement. Or maybe it's the clojure web site making
things difficult to find.
Nuts, I happened to apply for my Chickasaw Nation citizenship today -
which gives me tribal voting rights, free health care at tribal
hospitals and clinics, the ability to get grants for education,
housing, free laptops, etc, etc, etc. That was less work than being
allowed to submit a bug to the issue tracking system for clojure
(unless I just didn't find the right page....).
It was also more work than submitting patches looks to be for apache,
django, gnu, fedora, or openoffice (from your list, though it sounds
like openoffice may changed for the worse) or I know to be for
FreeBSD, PostreSQL, OpenSolaris, Python, Cheetah, to name some I've
been using for a while.
Sure, many of them require you to create an account to submit any bug
report. But that's straightforward, and a not unreasonable anti-spam
measure. Some even require you to click a checkbox assigning the
rights to anything you submit to the project in question as part of
that process. But I can still contribute patches to these projects
without having to print, sign and post any kind of developer
> It was also more work than submitting patches looks to be for apache,
> django, gnu
FWIW in gnu projects if your patch is >10 lines long then they do
require you to go through a fairly lengthy attribution process.
Two things. First, the limit is "around 15 lines of code", excluding
repeated changes, and it applies over all patches, not just one:
More importantly, this doesn't happen until *after* the patch has been
submitted and a contributor decides it should be included. Putting
roadblocks in front of people who want to submit patches or bugs - and
not being able to update the bug database qualifies, since you can't
report on the results of suggested fixes or at the very least add
another case to the existing ticket without a developer having to
notice the duplicate and flag it - is a bad idea.
Again, maybe it's possible to submit bugs to assembla without the CA;
but finding the assembla tickets list itself requires wading past the
verbiage about the CA. If bug reports (with or without patches)
doesn't require a CA, then it should be a lot easier to find.
I am excited by this thread and hope that the energy being shown here will translate into specific efforts to improve the colaboration process for everyone.
I won't be at the Conj *sniff* because I'm on a roadtrip (currently in
ABQ, next stop LA) but this thread has inspired me to get a signed CA
to Rich as soon as I get back home!