[LLVMdev] Using C++'11 language features in LLVM itself

[Justin Holewinski]

Alright, fair enough.  I apologize for bringing it up.  I thought asking
Pawel for this references was within the merits of technical (not legal)
discussion.  Now I know.  Thanks for clarifying!


On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 4:54 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com>wrote:

> On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 12:13 PM, Justin Holewinski <
> justin.holewinski at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 2:59 PM, Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin.org>wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 2:18 PM, Justin Holewinski
>>> <justin.holewinski at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 1:31 PM, Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin.org>
>>> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>  I do not think you can legally make clang a system compiler on
>>> >> >> Windows without licensing headers/libraries from Microsoft.
>>> >> >> So inability to parse all of the SDK headers is a non issue to me,
>>> >> >> can't use them anyway.
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Care to cite a source?
>>> >>
>>> >> Please don't (either of you) randomly speculate on the legality of
>>> >> clang/LLVM.
>>> >>
>>> >> To be perfectly blunt (without trying to actually be offensive):
>>> >> You aren't qualified, and it's not helpful or productive.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > It's not speculation, it's asking for references to information.  If
>>> there
>>> > was interpretation, then I would agree.  But there is not.
>>>
>>> The only place it could possibly lead is a discussion of legal issues
>>> around llvm/clang, which are not on-topic for this list.
>>> If ya'll want to have a private discussion about it, go ahead.
>>> But don't do it here.
>>>
>>
>> No, I was asking for a reference, not legal advice.  If it turns into a
>> legal debate, *then* it's off topic.  If I have to start a private
>> conversation for every piece of information I want, what is the point of
>> community conversations like these?
>>
>
> It is, indeed, off topic. Danny is completely correct here.
>
> The fact is that legal speculation, information, references, or anything
> else *will* lead to a discussion, which shouldn't take place here. If you
> want such information and to understand it, you should discuss it with a
> lawyer.
>
> This mailing list is for technical discussion. Let's keep it that way.
>
>
> If you want to continue debating the semantics of this or whether or not
> to discuss it on this list (something that seems a truly pointless meta
> discussion), I'm asking you to take even that debate off the list so that
> we can remain focused on the original question: C++11 features in LLVM and
> Clang.
>



-- 

Thanks,

Justin Holewinski
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20130110/fcc82faf/attachment.html>