[cfe-dev] standard headers question

[Chris Lattner]

On Dec 17, 2007, at 11:43 AM, Sean Middleditch wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-12-14 at 15:33 -0500, Daniel Berlin wrote:
>> So, speaking as a lawyer, you are best off with the LLVM licensewith
>> the "binary form should reproduce" clause removed, or the MIT  
>> license.
>>
>> Binary form for headers never really matters except if you start  
>> using
>> inline functions, because the binary form of a header is often  
>> nothing
>> for C.  However, it is a legal gray area, and it's easier to just
>> avoid it.  Otherwise, you are going to get lawyers at corporations
>> claiming they can't use your headers because they have to put  
>> stuff in
>> their about boxes.
>
> Understood.  I will use the MIT/X license on the standard C headers I
> have.  (Which are almost all written, except I haven't made the  
> builtins
> to do the platform-specific selection, so they only work correctly on
> ILP32 and LP64 platforms.)

That sounds great.  I tossed this at the apple lawyers and they are  
pondering.  It will be several weeks before they spit out an answer.   
Their initial thought was that an MIT license or the LLVM license  
with the attribution clause removed would be good (as Dan says), but  
they want some time to confer among themselves or do whatever lawyers  
do ;-)

In the meantime, MIT sounds great :).  Thanks for the input Danny!

-Chris