[llvm-dev] RFC #3: Improving license & patent issues in the LLVM community

Chandler Carruth via llvm-dev llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Wed Apr 19 03:47:29 PDT 2017

On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 3:26 AM C Bergström via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:

> Umm.. How is Apple or another large company currently handling this if
> the current situation is unacceptable? Doesn't Apple ship libc++ by
> default? Is it telling them to give attribution in every program
> somewhere?

I don't see anyone saying that the current situation is unacceptable. We
have special rules around runtime libraries right now to try and address
these issues, and we're discussing how they might be addressed with a
single license going forward (with the advantages listed in Chris's email).

I also think questions about how specific companies are handling specific
products' license compliance requirements (including any part of LLVM's
requirements) should be directed to the company so that whatever lawyers
represent that company can respond with accurate details. That seems much
more like a discussion about a company and a product than an interesting
discussion about the right path forward for LLVM's license.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20170419/96a04d61/attachment.html>

More information about the llvm-dev mailing list