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

[Chris Lattner via llvm-dev]

> On Oct 19, 2015, at 9:27 AM, Joerg Sonnenberger via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> 
> On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 08:25:16AM -0700, Chris Lattner via llvm-dev wrote:
>> 1) We could introduce a novel legal solution.
> 
> Please, no.
> 
>> 2) We could require new contributors to sign the Apache CLA.
> 
> To me, this is the most acceptable option of the listed terms.

Please explain: why?

>> 3) We could relicense all of LLVM under the Apache 2.0 license and add a runtime exception.
> 
> This one I would consider a regression over the status quo. Your list is
> missing "the license is significantly longer and harder to read”.

To repeat Danny’s point, this doesn’t seem like a concern to me.  Please explain your concern: does this affect users of llvm, contributors to llvm, or someone else?  How?

-Chris