[llvm-dev] Relicensing: Revised Developer Policy

[Rafael Avila de Espindola via llvm-dev]

Chris Lattner <clattner at llvm.org> writes:
>>> 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.

The code is then effectively dual licensed. It is both Apache and
Apache+exceptions.

Could it be Apache+MIT for example?

Since every contributor would be agreeing with both, we would still get
section 3 (the grant of patents), and could drop our current patent
wording.

Cheers,
Rafael