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

[Daniel Berlin via llvm-dev]

On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 12:39 PM, Joachim Durchholz via llvm-dev
<llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> Am 19.10.2015 um 19:40 schrieb Daniel Berlin:
>> On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 10:24 AM, Joachim Durchholz via llvm-dev
>> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>> Am 19.10.2015 um 17:25 schrieb Chris Lattner via llvm-dev:
>>>>
>>>> Unfortunately, adding the Apache CLA also has several disadvantages
>>>> as well:
>>>>
>>>> - It adds new barriers for new contributors to LLVM.  We don’t
>>>> currently have a process where you need to sign (or click through) a
>>>> form, and adding one is a barrier in certain situations (e.g. it
>>>> requires individuals to disclose sensitive personal information like
>>>> mailing addresses etc, and may require extra levels of legal approval
>>>> in corporate situations).
>>>
>>> If you want to extend a patent license to any LLVM user, you need legal
>>> approval from the patent holder, and that inevitably means paperwork.
>>
>> Speaking as an IP lawyer, No it does not require more than the CLA or
>> the license provide.
>
> Then how is a change in licensing needed at all?

The CLA =  the Apache CLA option
The License = The Apache License option

Since neither of those options is currently used, ...