[llvm-dev] RFC #3: Improving license & patent issues in the LLVM community
Chris Lattner via llvm-dev
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Sun Apr 30 10:33:17 PDT 2017
I will follow up with you offlist.
> On Apr 29, 2017, at 3:01 PM, Rafael Avila de Espindola via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>> 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.
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
More information about the llvm-dev