[LLVMdev] Using LLVM code in projects/compiler-rt

[Kostya Serebryany]

On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 10:17 AM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com>wrote:

> On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 11:10 PM, Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin.org>wrote:
>
>> >
>> > #4 is interesting, but a *ton* of work. The Object library, most of
>> Support
>> > and System, all would have to sink into this core module, all would
>> have to
>> > get dual-licensed (ow!!! how? some of the contributors are around to
>> agree
>> > to new license, but not all... likely a fair amount of rewrite required
>> to
>> > produce new versions of libraries under the correct license).
>>
>> You actually don't have that many contributors. I've seen this done
>> for projects with 200+ contributors.
>> Even better, most LLVM contributors are still around.
>> If you have to rewrite a little code along the way to account for
>> folks you can't find, this is probably worth the expense anyway (and
>> i'm pretty sure we'd be happy to fund it :P).
>>
>
> After talking with DannyB, I now am strongly in the camp that we should do
> #4 whole-sale, and make everything hold a license that works for
> runtimes. We can potentially move completely away from dual-licensing.
>
> We can definitely drive this effort if the community is supportive,
> including re-writing parts of the codebase from authors we can't contact.
>

What will be our (asan/tsan) next steps?

--kcc


>
>
>> The more interesting question is whether you want to dual license, add
>> a general exception to the LLVM license, or switch wholesale to MIT
>> license.
>>
>
> This is indeed the question: what should the end state be.
>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20120601/f38b5dec/attachment.html>