[llvm-dev] RFC: General purpose type-safe formatting library

Chandler Carruth via llvm-dev llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Wed Oct 12 02:40:42 PDT 2016


On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 2:30 AM David Chisnall <David.Chisnall at cl.cam.ac.uk>
wrote:

> 2-clause BSD and MIT licenses (the relevant ones here) do address this.


The second clause here:
https://github.com/fmtlib/fmt/blob/master/LICENSE.rst

States:
"""
2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
"""

IANAL and all that, but I do not think this addresses the binary
distribution issues as effectively as what is being proposed for the LLVM
license.

Even if it does, it would become that much harder to understand and
convince everyone that it sufficiently addresses it.

However, if everything goes under the single LLVM license being proposed,
we get to deal with that exactly once rather than having to evaluate N
different licenses.

Anyways, we're pretty far afield here. My main point was that reusing
existing libraries in LLVM at this low level has a surprising additional
cost beyond any technical cost of tracking dependencies due to the
surprising nature of runtime libraries reusing parts of the LLVM project.
It is still a cost that should be traded off carefully against the cost of
re-implementing something. And none of it should cause us to not examine
the alternatives and learn from and match their API ideas where reasonable.

They are as permissive as the most permissive license used in LLVM (and far
> more permissive than the proposed new license) and carry no binary
> attribution clauses.
>

While I don't quite agree with every aspect of your claim here, I don't
want to debate on a mailing list which license is more or less permissive
(ones currently in use, ones proposed, etc.). Not sure anything good comes
of that.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20161012/8a161e8d/attachment.html>


More information about the llvm-dev mailing list