[LLVMdev] Offer of membership to LLVM into the Software Freedom Conservancy, Inc.

[John Criswell]

On 9/19/12 7:47 PM, John Criswell wrote:
> [snip]
>
>>
>> This, then, creates the issue that we have LLVM sub-projects that do 
>> not have the same license as the main project, which in turn means we 
>> can't free move code between the various sub-projects and the main 
>> project.  I know that the Address Sanitizer guys have had issues with 
>> this when developing their runtime library.

Sorry.  Missed reading this last part.

So the problem is being able to move code from the core compiler (which 
requires the license with binary distributions) to runtime libraries 
(for which binary license redistribution is a bad thing). Correct?

Hrm.  I am not a lawyer, but I don't think the MIT license gets you 
around the problem either.  Both require copies or significant portions 
to carry the copyright notice; link in enough of the library, and one 
may be technically required to include the license.

-- John T.

>>
>> --Owen
>> _______________________________________________
>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev