<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=us-ascii"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><div class="">IANAL, but I have a few licensing related concerns about a some of the things being discussed on this thread.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">(1) We can't move libFuzzer to compiler-rt without re-licesning the code or making the compiler-rt repository contain code covered under different licenses. This is because compiler-rt is licensed differently from LLVM. IMO, this should make moving the code into compiler-rt untenable at least until after the project's general licensing discussion reaches some form of resolution.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">(2) libFuzzer is licensed today under LLVM's UIUC license which requires binary attribution. If we're adding options to the clang driver, and potentially including libFuzzer in distributions of LLVM, this licensing requirement becomes problematic for our users. We should consider how bet to approach this.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">I do believe that Justin's solution of structuring libFuzzer as a standalone project and moving it under llvm/runtimes does side-step some of the licensing complications, and it is a good technical solution to the problem at least in the interim.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">I think waiting for the monorepo to happen is a bad idea. If only from the perspective that we haven't actually had that decision made yet, so waiting for something that may not actually happen isn't a great solution.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">-Chris</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><br class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On May 3, 2017, at 2:10 PM, Kostya Serebryany via llvm-dev <<a href="mailto:llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org" class="">llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5">><br class="">
> can we?<br class="">
> If we can, then we probably can also leave the code where it is, and tweak<br class="">
> the cmake to use just-built-clang. No?<br class="">
<br class="">
</div></div>Absolutely - this shouldn't be all that hard. I'd thought about taking a<br class="">
crack at it a while ago but I haven't had the time.<br class="">
<br class="">
The only complicated part is deciding what to do when we're not building<br class="">
clang - should we build libFuzzer with the host compiler in this case,<br class="">
or not build it at all?<br class="">
</blockquote></div>not build at all</div></div>
_______________________________________________<br class="">LLVM Developers mailing list<br class=""><a href="mailto:llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org" class="">llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org</a><br class="">http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev<br class=""></div></blockquote></div><br class=""></body></html>