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

Rafael Avila de Espindola via llvm-dev llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Sat Apr 29 15:01:04 PDT 2017

On April 29, 2017 12:46:35 PM EDT, Chris Lattner <clattner at llvm.org> wrote:
>> On Apr 29, 2017, at 8:03 AM, Rafael Avila de Espindola via llvm-dev
><llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>> Chris Lattner <clattner at llvm.org> writes:
>>> I don’t have a link off hand.  Two major points:
>>> 1) CLA’s in general require an additional approval step, which
>reduces contributions.
>> Yes, that is the cost I mention in the email. I think it is better to
>> take this cost than to impose a new license on the users.
>For a variety of reasons, we need to change the license.  “Just adding
>a CLA on top of what we have” isn’t an option.

Could you please explain why? As it stands I don't agree with changing the license to any code I may have copyright to.


Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

More information about the llvm-dev mailing list