[cfe-dev] Query: Is clang an "Apple product"?

[Robinson, Paul]

> From: Renato Golin [mailto:renato.golin at linaro.org]
> On 2 October 2014 18:46, Robinson, Paul
> <Paul_Robinson at playstation.sony.com> wrote:
> > Apple delivers a version of clang (as part of Xcode?) and it's not
> unheard
> > of for a vendor to include proprietary changes (I don't know whether
> Apple
> > does this).  In that sense the clang-that-Apple-delivers could be
> reasonably
> > considered an "Apple product."
> 
> In that sense, Sony, ARM and others also release LLVM based compilers.

That's quite true.

> Every time I heard the phrase "LLVM is an Apple product" was in a
> pejorative way to diminish the community value, mainly due to the
> license being more "corporate friendly" than GPLv3.

Okay, I didn't follow that part (and probably I am just as happy
that way...)

> Ideals and licenses apart, LLVM is an Apple/Google product as much as
> GCC is a RedHat product, Linux is a RedHat/Intel product, etc, i.e.
> not at all.

I think the best way to describe this particular relationship is that
Sony/Apple/ARM/etc. are OEMs of Clang/LLVM.  Per standard commercial 
terminology, we call our respective editions our "products" even though 
it's obvious we didn't "produce" them from scratch.

As far as Sony's licensees are concerned, Sony is *responsible* for
the Sony product.  This is different from claiming *ownership*; 
obviously the community owns Clang/LLVM.
--paulr

> 
> cheers,
> --renato