<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class="">On Feb 12, 2016, at 2:29 PM, Philip Reames <<a href="mailto:listmail@philipreames.com" class="">listmail@philipreames.com</a>> wrote:<br class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" class=""><blockquote cite="mid:E760DCF4-3FF0-458D-B1D6-11553C388C32@apple.com" type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class="">The code is 100% copyrighted by Apple. The full history in
the swift repo is here:</div>
<div class=""><a moz-do-not-send="true" href="https://github.com/apple/swift/commits/master/include/swift/Basic/OptionSet.h" class="">https://github.com/apple/swift/commits/master/include/swift/Basic/OptionSet.h</a></div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">There are two trivial patches by non-apple contributors.
Both are both single line patches that adjust comments (one
is the first line of the file, one is the copyright date):</div>
<div class=""><a moz-do-not-send="true" href="https://github.com/apple/swift/commit/1339b5403bbaf6205abb2bfdf7fabadef1aacc70#diff-1e8f8df8addd9510deea20d4bea2eda2" class="">https://github.com/apple/swift/commit/1339b5403bbaf6205abb2bfdf7fabadef1aacc70#diff-1e8f8df8addd9510deea20d4bea2eda2</a></div>
<div class=""><a moz-do-not-send="true" href="https://github.com/apple/swift/commit/e3a4147ac94e55fcab1d14e949f572b53d9eb638#diff-1e8f8df8addd9510deea20d4bea2eda2" class="">https://github.com/apple/swift/commit/e3a4147ac94e55fcab1d14e949f572b53d9eb638#diff-1e8f8df8addd9510deea20d4bea2eda2</a></div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">That said, both of those patches are irrelevant to the
discussion, because Argyrios removed the swift header and
replaced it with the LLVM header when he checked it in.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
Just to be clear, you're saying that Apple owns the copyright on the
entire file as posted for review and can thus relicense under the
LLVM license?</div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div><div>Yes.</div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" class="">If so, that would resolve the licensing concern. In
the future, let's make sure that gets mentioned in the review/commit
thread to avoid confusion.<br class=""></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div><div>I can understand your concern, but for better or worse, we don’t ask llvm contributors to state the provenance of their code that they are posting. If you’re asking for some new rule to be put in place, please specify what the rule is and what the rationale for that rule is.</div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" class="">
With that, we're back to "let's post a patch and get it reviewed"
per the normal process. <br class=""></div></div></blockquote><br class=""></div><div>Exactly.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>-Chris</div><br class=""></body></html>