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

[Daniel Berlin via llvm-dev]

>
>
> " So what the license means in different
>   jurisdictions may vary and is hard to predict."
>
> Apache was vetted quite heavily by a large number of international lawyers
> prior to release, much like GPLv3.
> So this falls into the "cast random aspersions on license with no concrete
> concern".
>

And BTW, the claim it makes about apache is even more true of the license
OpenBSD uses:

1. It had no international lawyers review it at the time.
2. It relies on implied licenses for patents, and you can't get a group of
lawyers in any single jurisdiction to agree that such a thing exists in
most cases, let alone what the scope would be.

This is because it's completely judicially defined, so it's literally not
even written down anywhere, let alone similar between jurisdictions.

3. The only way you ever get out of "So what the license means in
different jurisdictions
may vary and is hard to predict." is to define what you mean, not say
less.  So this is even *more* true of things like BSD.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20170423/bb2a65a7/attachment.html>