<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><div><div class="">On Oct 19, 2015, at 4:03 PM, Chris Lattner via llvm-dev <<a href="mailto:llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org" class="">llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org</a>> wrote:</div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">Yes, this is a known concern with the Apache 2 license, but I don’t know if there is an actual “known” answer to this question. DannyB or someone else can comment for sure, but my understanding is that the terms of the GPL2 prevent *any* license from including the sort of patent protection that we are looking for.<br class=""><br class="">FWIW, this is what the FSF has to say about the topic:<br class=""><a href="http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#apache2" class="">http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#apache2</a><br class=""><br class="">Note that the FSF *recommends* the Apache 2 license for permissively licensed projects.<br class=""><br class="">If you are still concerned about this issue, my question is simply: what specific GPL2 compiler (or other user) that might want to use LLVM would be affected?<br class=""></div></blockquote></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Glancing through the <a href="http://llvm.org/ProjectsWithLLVM/" class="">project list</a> I see at least one project that might be adversely affected by that incompatibility: OpenJDK Zero. I believe OpenJDK is licensed by Oracle as "GPLv2-only with classpath exception", and that the Zero folks have patched OpenJDK to link in LLVM to provide a JIT on platforms that OpenJDK doesn't natively support with its own code generator.</div></body></html>