[LLVMdev] Licensing requirements

[Tor Gunnar Houeland]

On 07/06/2011 07:10 PM, Chris Lattner wrote:
> On Jul 6, 2011, at 1:55 AM, Tor Gunnar Houeland wrote:
>
>>> There is no need to include any notices in the binaries of an application built with clang, or some with some other application that links to the LLVM runtime libraries that are dual licensed.
>> Thanks for your response. Is this ability to distribute binaries without notices based on your personal assertion that the MIT license used does not require them?
> Yes.  I am not a lawyer and am not giving legal advice.  This is based on my understanding of the MIT license.

OK, thanks. That's contradictory to the actual conditions written in the 
license, and as such the dual-licensing does not serve that purpose. 
Could http://llvm.org/docs/DeveloperPolicy.html#license be updated to 
reflect that?

(Or do you strongly disagree that "all copies of the software" includes 
"binary"? When changing the license, you mentioned an example of Mozilla 
building with Clang. As can be seen in about:license, they consider MIT 
licenses to require reproduction of the license text. What's your 
reasoning for your understanding?)

I really agree with the intentions, it would be nice for user-compiled 
programs not to unwittingly include code that imposes licensing 
conditions. It would be great if it were feasible to also provide such a 
different license, or additional permissions similar to what GNU 
libstdc++ does.

   - Tor Gunnar