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

[Chris Lattner via llvm-dev]

> On Oct 19, 2015, at 10:50 AM, James Y Knight via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> 
> On Oct 19, 2015, at 11:25 AM, Chris Lattner via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote:
>> 3) We could relicense all of LLVM under the Apache 2.0 license and add a runtime exception.
>> 
>> The Apache 2.0 license is a well known, widely used, and highly respected way to define and scope guarantees when it comes to patent contribution and coverage.  This is the license in question:
>> http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 <http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0>
>> 
>> The runtime exception would be a short addendum.  For example, it could be something like:
>> "As an exception, if you use this Software to compile your source code and portions of this Software are embedded into the binary product as a result, you may redistribute such product without providing attribution as would otherwise be required by Sections 4(a), 4(b) and 4(d) of the License."
> 
> It seems important to be clear in communications like this that the proposal is for LLVM to be relicensed under the "Apache 2.0 with extra LLVM runtime exception" license, NOT under the "Apache 2.0" license, with an extra LLVM runtime exception.

Right, I’m sorry for over simplifying that.

> That seems important to be absolutely clear about, because at the very least presumably LLVM would not be allowed to integrate any code under the normal Apache 2.0 license, or else it'd lose the runtime exception, right?

Yes, that is correct.

-Chris

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20151019/36327ebf/attachment.html>