[LLVMdev] Licensing requirements

[Chris Lattner]

On Jul 6, 2011, at 6:41 PM, Tor Gunnar Houeland wrote:

> On 07/07/2011 02:25 AM, Chris Lattner wrote:
>> I, and many other reasonable people, consider the phrase:
>> 
>> "The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software."
>> 
>> ... to be talking about *copies of the software*.  A binary is not a copy of the software, it is a lump of bits derived from it.
>> 
>> I am not a lawyer, and do not offer this as legal advise.  However, lawyers that I respect agree with this interpretation.  You can choose to interpret it however you would like.
> 
> Thanks, that looks quite short and clear, though it doesn't seem to be obvious (and I would not personally wish to rely on it).
> 
> Would it be possible to add something like that to http://llvm.org/docs/DeveloperPolicy.html#license so it's clear how it was interpreted?

No, and it is pretty useless to ask for that.  How I interpret it doesn't really matter, and that page doesn't give legal advice.

You seem to be hung up on mozilla including MIT code in their about box.  There is a big difference between them choosing to include the text, as a sign of good faith, and them being forced to include it legally.

>  Do you happen to know if all the copyright holders also interpret it that way?


No I don't.

-Chris