[cfe-dev] standard headers questions

Chris Lattner clattner at apple.com
Thu Dec 13 17:34:34 PST 2007

On Dec 13, 2007, at 4:10 PM, me22 wrote:

> On 13/12/2007, Sean Middleditch <sean at awesomeplay.com> wrote:
>> Which license would be most appropriate for the C standard  
>> headers?  I'm
>> not sure that the LLVM license with the advertising clause would  
>> be the
>> best bet

The LLVM License doesn't have the BSD advertising clause.

>> , since those headers get compiled into end-user's applications,
>> but IANAL.  Personal preference would be public domain, or MIT/X  
>> license
>> if the no-liability stuff is considered important, but I'll use  
>> whatever
>> the project leads say I should.
> Something like Boost's license, I'd say.  And it can't be public
> domain, see http://www.rosenlaw.com/lj16.htm :
> "there is nothing that permits the dumping of intellectual property
> into the public domain — except as happens in due course when any
> applicable copyrights expire"

Excellent link, lots of food for thought.

I'd prefer to keep it simple, either the LLVM license, if possible, a  
straight-bsd or MIT license, etc.

I will extract some free legal advice from apple lawyers and get back  
to you.  In the meantime, please pick something simple (like you  
have) and we will resolve the issue in parallel with implementation.   


More information about the cfe-dev mailing list