[LLVMdev] Licensing requirements

Eric Christopher echristo at apple.com
Tue Jul 5 15:19:05 PDT 2011

Other than having you read:


your best bet is to consult your lawyer with questions like this.


On Jul 5, 2011, at 7:37 AM, Tor Gunnar Houeland wrote:

> My impression from reading http://llvm.org/docs/DeveloperPolicy.html#clp 
> is that it's intended to be possible to compile programs using llvm and 
> distribute the resulting binaries freely. This does not seem to be the case.
> I'm assuming no portion of LLVM is included in the compiled binaries, 
> only the runtime library components, so that the compiled binaries are 
> not derived from LLVM. Is that true?
> The runtime library components state that they are licensed under 
> http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php which does not 
> contain a specific clause regarding binary redistribution. This seems to 
> have been interpreted as not placing any restrictions on binary 
> redistribution, i.e. that "all copies" has somehow been interpreted as 
> "copies in source code form". (Different licenses such as Boost, zlib, 
> and bzip2 etc. do not require copyright notices for binary redistributions.)
> Is it sufficient to include the MIT copyright notices from 
> http://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/compiler-rt/trunk/LICENSE.TXT / 
> http://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/libcxx/trunk/LICENSE.TXT for programs 
> compiled with LLVM? (Probably including the respective CREDITS.TXT files 
> as a courtesy, although there doesn't seem to be any actual requirements 
> to indicate that it's for Compiler-RT/libc++)
> And finally, could it be possible to change the licensing (again) so 
> that no notices would be required?
>   - Tor Gunnar
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev

More information about the llvm-dev mailing list