[llvm-dev] RFC #3: Improving license & patent issues in the LLVM community
Chris Bieneman via llvm-dev
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Wed Apr 19 13:37:27 PDT 2017
> On Apr 19, 2017, at 3:25 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
I cannot speak for any company, and IANAL, but the big problem that I see in the current situation is that we can’t freely move code between LLVM and the runtime libraries, and we can’t share code between LLVM and the runtime libraries, because we address the runtime exception by having a different license for the runtimes than what LLVM and Clang are licensed under.
Moving to this modified Apache 2 license for all our projects seems like a clear win to me.
> On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 3:53 PM, David Chisnall via llvm-dev
> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>> On 19 Apr 2017, at 05:45, Chris Lattner <clattner at llvm.org> wrote:
>>> On Apr 18, 2017, at 4:59 AM, David Chisnall via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>>> My chief concern is that if I do (for any foo.cc):
>>>> $ c++ -static foo.cc
>>>> Then the resulting a.out should not come with any attribution requirements (for compiler-rt or libc++). If it does, then we are going to end up with a large number of accidental license violations.
>>> Right. The intention is that that does not require attribution due to the exception.
>> In that case, this looks good to me. In addition to the license, please can we put together an FAQ explicitly discussing these cases and indicating what we believe the license requires of people?
>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
More information about the llvm-dev