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

[Chris Lattner]

On Sep 19, 2012, at 4:17 PM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote:

>> My understanding is that the issue is about the "advertising" clause
>> in the UIUC license, similar to old-style BSD licenses.  It generally
>> isn't much of a problem to reproduce the copyright header in the
>> documentation for a compiler that is based on LLVM.  However, it's
>> not an appropriate clause for a runtime library that will be linked
>> into applications compiled *by* LLVM.  We don't want to force our
>> users to have an LLVM copyright header included with their binaries
>> just because we linked them against compiler-rt.  That is why
>> compiler-rt is dual licensed with the MIT license today.
> 
> I am supportive of a licensing change. The MIT license contains the
> "substantial portions" qualifier, which seems fairly ambiguous, and
> does not specify whether 'copies ... of the software' includes
> binaries, etc. I think that the Boost license is better in this
> regard.

Just to clarify, we're not actually proposing a license change at this point, so there is no need to discuss the pros and cons of various options.  If we went with the SFC, they'd presumably be fine with whatever license the community chose.

-Chris