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

[Daniel Berlin via llvm-dev]

On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 1:05 PM, Joachim Durchholz via llvm-dev
<llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> Am 19.10.2015 um 21:40 schrieb Daniel Berlin:
>>
>> 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, ...
>
>
> The point I was trying to make was that to accept patented code, the LLVM
> project would need a copyright and a patent license, and given published
> expert opinion (as far as I have seen it), this seems to be a lot easier for
> copyright than for patents.

As mentioned, either option will for this just fine.