[llvm-dev] RFC #2: Improving license & patent issues in the LLVM community

[Ed Schouten via llvm-dev]

Hi Chris,

2016-09-12 18:16 GMT+02:00 Chris Lattner via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>:
> ---- Exceptions to the Apache 2.0 License: ——
>
> 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.
>
> [...]
>
> ---- end ---

Just to make sure I get this straight, I can substitute 'this
Software' by the names of components provided by the LLVM project. For
example:

> As an exception, if you use LLVM, Clang and/or DragonEgg to compile your source code and portions of compiler-rt, libc++, libc++abi and/or libunwind 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.

I've got a couple of questions about this.

- Now that we're also in the business of providing other kinds of
tools that are not compilers (e.g., LLD being a linker), are we sure
that this will cover all of our needs?

- What about derived software? Would this also apply if I'd be using
the Swift compiler to generate an executable that contains some bits
from compiler-rt? What if I'd be using GCC, but added a tiny fraction
of LLVM's source code to it? What about a stock version of GCC that is
linked against compiler-rt?

Sorry if some of these questions may seem hypothetical or silly; I'm
merely interested in knowing where the boundary is and how this
licensing exception will work in practice.

Best regards,
-- 
Ed Schouten <ed at nuxi.nl>
Nuxi, 's-Hertogenbosch, the Netherlands
KvK-nr.: 62051717