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

[Daniel Berlin via llvm-dev]

>
>
> > For clarification: Is my interpretation incorrect?  If I compile code
> with GCC, which uses templates from libc++ headers and therefore results in
> libc++ code being inserted into the resulting binary, am I required to
> abide by clause 4 of the Apache license and include the libc++ attribution?
> >
> > Yes.
> > But, AFAIK, this is deliberate.  IE the view is that in this case, you
> *should* be giving attribution.
> > So this is at least "not a bug", regardless of whether it's liked or not.
>
> I believe that this would be a show-stopper for FreeBSD’s use of libc++
> and compiler-rt.  As such, I would strongly oppose this and would not
> consent to any of my code in libc++ being relicensed under the proposed
> terms.  This would require that we audit all 30K packages, find the ones
> that will (when we ship binaries) link libc++, and add the attribution in
> the right places.
>
> Whose view is ’the view'?


The consensus i saw here and elsewhere. I'm happy to be shown to be wrong.


> I and the other libc++ contributors were all happy to have our code
> relicensed under the MIT license (or contribute it under those terms
> originally), so there is some pretty clear evidence that we explicitly did
> *not* require this attribution.


That license does, in fact, require attribution:
"The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in
all copies or substantial portions of the Software. "

Indeed, we relicensed under the MIT license (after long discussion)
> specifically to avoid this requirement.


If we did, we screwed it up then. We probably meant the zlib license, which
does not require attribution  ;)


> This seems like a step that is directly contrary to the intentions of the
> original authors.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20161103/3af0a355/attachment.html>