[llvm-dev] RFC: Improving license & patent issues in the LLVM community

Renato Golin via llvm-dev llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Mon Oct 19 09:04:46 PDT 2015

On 19 October 2015 at 16:25, Chris Lattner via llvm-dev
<llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> This probably isn’t a surprise at this point, but the LLVM Foundation board
> and I recommend that we relicense all of the LLVM Project code (including
> clang, lldb, …) currently under the UIUC and MIT licenses (i.e. not
> including the GPL bits like llvm-gcc and dragonegg) under the Apache 2
> license. We feel that it is important to do something right for the long
> term, even if it is a complicated and slow process, than to do the wrong
> thing in the short term.

Hi Chris,

IANAL etc, but I think this is a good move. Open Source license
proliferation is a serious problem and it does incur in very long
delays in contributions from some companies / groups.

I can't comment on the virtues of the Apache license (versus BSD,
LGPL, etc), and I personally don't have preferences as to which
license we move to, as long as it's well known, widely used and
provide the features we need. If the Apache 2.0 (plus the binary
clause, that GCC uses too) fits the bill, LGTM. :)

The move may impose some extra work on the companies that already
contribute to LLVM but still don't have legal approval for Apache 2.0
licensed projects. But if the time frame is 18+ months, I think that's
not going to be that big of a deal.


More information about the llvm-dev mailing list