[cfe-dev] standard headers questions

Sean Middleditch sean at awesomeplay.com
Thu Dec 13 18:43:30 PST 2007

On Thu, 2007-12-13 at 17:34 -0800, Chris Lattner wrote:
> The LLVM License doesn't have the BSD advertising clause.

My apologies, I should have said the "endorsement" clause, not the
"advertising" clause.  My non-marketeer brain has a tough time
distinguishing the two sometimes. :)

> > 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 didn't put much faith in that page due to a complete lack of
references, so I searched around a bit, and it seems accurate.  Here's a
much more obtuse but better defended essay on public domain.  It
includes a section on public domain software and why it's not really
possible to to do with today's laws:


The gist of the arguments against public domain dedication are that
modern law goes so far as to protect authors against putting works in
the public domain, because the author might not understand what he's
doing until it's too late.  The laws have become very pro-producer,
con-consumer (which, etymologically, I find freaking hilarious).

> 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.   
> Thanks!

Alrighty, will do, chief! 

> -Chris

More information about the cfe-dev mailing list