Fork me on GitHub

Clojure really brings joy in life. Have been trying to tackle the issue for more than an hour, walking around the house with a gloomy face. Project initially is written in Python, so I gotta solve it in Python. After awhile I decided to take it to Clojure. Some time later took a thinking-walk around the house, involuntarily said to my nephew (CS Student), that I moved to Clojure regarding the problem. > His remark - Yeah, I read that on your face! Clojure makes us happy! <3

馃槏 32
馃憤 8
位ustin f(n)15:04:45

I am trying to find a particular project that was written in clojure. It is a tool that helps poll people about their thoughts on an issue to help write better public proposals that find consensus among everyone's concerns. It uses AI to group the user's responses. I think the company has it in use by some other governments, and trying to get it used locally in the USA as well. Anyone familiar with it? I think the author went to the last 2 Conj as well.

位ustin f(n)15:04:39

Yup, that's it. Thanks!

馃憤 4
eccentric J21:04:58

I'm about to publish a spacemacs layer repo for Anakondo but I'm not sure what to do about the license. I figure it would be best to use the same license as Anakondo but it's under the owner's name. I'd like to leave the license under his name and make it consistent with the rest of his project. Is that a reasonable approach? Or should I be licensing it under my name?


does the layer change the authors code in any way, or just wrap it?


I think layers typically just state what package to install and adds some config and sets up integrations with other spacemacs stuff


then you should abide by the license they set (e.g. usually there's stipulations if you are disseminating it unmodified)


since it's MIT I would guess that you can set whatever license you want, since it doesn't modify their code and you're not redistributing it, and you can put the layer code as copyrighted by you


but i am not a lawyer 馃檪 so I may be very wrong

eccentric J22:04:57

Ok that was pretty much what I had in mind. I'll put it under him, message him, and change it if he objects.


well, I was trying to say that I would put your name on the license of the layer, since you wrote it...


but again, IANAL!

eccentric J22:04:39

Hmm... I can see why I could but I would much rather transfer ownership to him than claim any rights to this layer.

eccentric J22:04:09

New plan! I'll put my name on it then ask he if he would like me to change it\transfer it.


yeah I mean, you are the copyright owner of the code, so鈥

eccentric J22:04:07

Right. I might legally own the copyright to the layer code but I have no need for it. It's such a minuscule thing I'd rather transfer it over or waive those rights if the original author of the library its wrapping would rather be responsible for it.


well i wouldn't want someone putting my name on code I didn't write and didn't agree to own 馃槢

eccentric J22:04:07

Exactly! I was uncertain if it would be more problematic to take ownership of such a thin wrapper or if I thrust the responsibility of ownership upon him, which is why I was asking for advice. 馃槃


And it is definitely better to put a license and copyright on it, than it is to leave it unclear.


Any code with no clear license and no clear copyright owner should be considered a red flag (and would certainly prevent quite a few companies from going anywhere near it).

馃憤 8