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

[Chandler Carruth]

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.


> 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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20120531/e3332d60/attachment.html>