[llvm-dev] Relicensing: Revised Developer Policy

[Chris Lattner via llvm-dev]

On Aug 10, 2017, at 3:08 PM, Rafael Avila de Espindola via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> Chris Lattner <clattner at llvm.org> writes:
> 
>>> On Aug 10, 2017, at 2:59 PM, Rafael Avila de Espindola <rafael.espindola at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> I can find old threads about it, but nothing saying why it was decided
>>> that contributor agreement wouldn't work. Care to send the URL?
>> 
>> Here are some quick points that come to mind:
>> 
>> 1. It raises the bar to contribution, because something must be
>> “signed” before a contribution can be made.
> 
> Yes, but changing the license impacts our users, which is a bigger issue IMHO.

We don’t believe that the relicense will impact users of LLVM.  Also, a relicense is unavoidable, as I already explained.

>> 2. The Apache CLA is the only widely available one, but it is unsuitable for LLVM’s goals because it allows a project to relicense contributions.  
>> 3. Some contributors are significantly concerned with the Apache CLA, partially because of #2, but there are other concerns.  Losing contributors would be unfortunate.
>> 4. We do not want a novel legal device (e.g. a new or significantly hacked up CLA).
> 
> We are proposing moving to modified Apache license. Why is a modified
> license less troublesome than a modified CLA?

The proposal is not a modified apache license.  It is an apache license that has some exceptions which can be completely ignored by a user of LLVM if they choose, and the exceptions are carefully scoped by many lawyers to ensure they are bounded in the right ways.

Designing a new CLA would be a significantly novel device which is very bad for reasons I’ve already explained in previous threads.

>> 5. The only way to achieve our goals (e.g. the ability to move code between the compiler and runtime libraries) is through a relicense, so a CLA doesn’t make anything simpler.
> 
> I have no problem changing the license to something FreeBSD and OpenBSD
> are happy with.

I request that you let other people worry about and represent their own concerns: there is no need for you to try to defend or represent other other people’s interests.  There is a lot of diligence that is happening off list, which is one of the reasons progress is slow.  We’re doing everything possible to make sure the right thing happens for users and contributors, even if it is at the expense of calendar time.

That said, my understanding is that they are currently evaluating this, and the current (but not finalized) belief is that the new license is good for FreeBSD.  

-Chris