[LLVMdev] Licensing requirements
clattner at apple.com
Wed Jul 6 18:52:27 PDT 2011
On Jul 6, 2011, at 6:41 PM, Tor Gunnar Houeland wrote:
> On 07/07/2011 02:25 AM, Chris Lattner wrote:
>> I, and many other reasonable people, consider the phrase:
>> "The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software."
>> ... to be talking about *copies of the software*. A binary is not a copy of the software, it is a lump of bits derived from it.
>> I am not a lawyer, and do not offer this as legal advise. However, lawyers that I respect agree with this interpretation. You can choose to interpret it however you would like.
> Thanks, that looks quite short and clear, though it doesn't seem to be obvious (and I would not personally wish to rely on it).
> Would it be possible to add something like that to http://llvm.org/docs/DeveloperPolicy.html#license so it's clear how it was interpreted?
No, and it is pretty useless to ask for that. How I interpret it doesn't really matter, and that page doesn't give legal advice.
You seem to be hung up on mozilla including MIT code in their about box. There is a big difference between them choosing to include the text, as a sign of good faith, and them being forced to include it legally.
> Do you happen to know if all the copyright holders also interpret it that way?
No I don't.
More information about the llvm-dev