[llvm-dev] RFC #2: Improving license & patent issues in the LLVM community

[Joerg Sonnenberger via llvm-dev]

On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 09:16:47AM -0700, Chris Lattner via llvm-dev wrote:
> The goals of this effort are outlined in the previous email but, in short, we aim to:
>  - encourage ongoing contributions to LLVM by preserving low barrier to entry for contributors.
>  - protect users of LLVM code by providing explicit patent protection in the license.
>  - protect contributors to the LLVM project by explicitly scoping their patent contributions with this license.
>  - eliminate the schism between runtime libraries and the rest of the compiler that makes it difficult to move code between them.

Hi Chris,
let me go back to this with some of the thoughts from the last Berlin
Social. Ignoring the question of what license to choose, I see three
different components mangled together:

(1) Coherent licensing between "build time" and "run time" components.
This part does need a license change one way or another.

(2) LLVM contributors grant permissions to use their patents as far as
necessary for their contributions. The desirability of this is
unquestionable either.

(3) Revocation of copyright and patent use permissions in case of
litigation. I think this is the part about a potential move to APSL2
that is most highly contented.

I want to make sure that those are the goals used to justify a
(potential) license change.

I still stand by my position that (2) isn't served alone by the APSL,
since it isn't clear who the contributing entity is. A click-thru CLA
for individual contributors would server the purpose for those, IMO.
For non-natural legal entities as contributors, I still maintain my
position that at least under German law a proper legal agreement is
necessary to ensure that any obligations are actually enforceable.

Joerg