[Openmp-dev] [Openmp-commits] Openmp-commits post from pawel.osmialowski at arm.com requires approval

[Paul Osmialowski via Openmp-dev]

Guys,

I regret the need to add a licence in order to contribute to this 
project (LLVM OpenMP runtime). This will be unnecessary when the LLVM 
Foundation relicenses LLVM under Apache 2.0 (with certain runtime 
exceptions). As I learnt, given the current LLVM licences and developer 
policy, ARM requires an additional licence. This requirement is not 
peculiar to ARM. Precedents for such licences  include IBM's licence in 
the PowerPC back end, Intel's licence in OpenMP, and ARM's licence in 
the AArch64 back end. Meanwhile, without our statement (fortunately, 
recently commited upstream), we might be unable to contribute to OpenMP. 
Please note that we regret this situation and that ARM strongly supports 
the LLVM Foundation's proposed re-licensing and intends to remove 
ARM-specific licences at that point.

Thanks,
Paul

On 22/04/2016 11:52, Hahnfeld, Jonas via Openmp-dev wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Openmp-commits [mailto:openmp-commits-bounces at lists.llvm.org]
>> On Behalf Of C Bergström via Openmp-commits
>> Sent: Friday, April 22, 2016 11:44 AM
>> To: openmp-commits at lists.llvm.org
>> Subject: Re: [Openmp-commits] Openmp-commits post from
>> pawel.osmialowski at arm.com requires approval
>>
>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>> From: Paul Osmialowski <pawel.osmialowski at arm.com>
>>> To: pawel.osmialowski at arm.com, jonathan.l.peyton at intel.com,
>>> james.molloy at arm.com
>>> Cc: amara.emerson at arm.com, openmp-commits at lists.llvm.org,
>>> renato.golin at linaro.org
>>> Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2016 09:37:02 +0000
>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH] D19319: ARM Limited license agreement from the
>>> copyright/patent holder
>>> pawosm01 added a reviewer: jmolloy.
>>>
>>> Repository:
>>>   rL LLVM
>>>
>>> http://reviews.llvm.org/D19319
>>
>> I'm not sure how much of my ARMv8 work is actually copyright PathScale, but
>> I don't think every company which contributes to llvm/clang/llvm-openmp
>> needs to push some "license" agreement. If a license agreement is required
>> it would make more sense for some non-profit to receive a copy and steward
>> it..
>>
>> I'm not opposed to ARM's push, but it just caught me as weird. Is this some
>> oddball ARM internal legal requirement?
>
> Hi Chris,
>
> As it seems you are one of the mailing list moderators: Could you then please approve this mail? It's important that the review mails get through to the others subscribed to this list...
>
> To the content itself: First, I'm no lawyer, so just my opinion here:
> From what LICENSE.txt says at the top:
> "[...] As a contributor,
> you agree to allow your code to be used under both. [...]"
>
> The license agreement from Intel is probably in place because it was developed solely by Intel prior to contributing it to the LLVM project. But that's just a guess.
> I think Jim was involved in this process, maybe he can help here...
>
> Cheers,
> Jonas
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>> From: openmp-commits-request at lists.llvm.org
>>> To:
>>> Cc:
>>> Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2016 02:34:43 -0700
>>> Subject: confirm 586d4c2de9d1f7404c82499e85785392ce705d55
>>> If you reply to this message, keeping the Subject: header intact,
>>> Mailman will discard the held message.  Do this if the message is
>>> spam.  If you reply to this message and include an Approved: header
>>> with the list password in it, the message will be approved for posting
>>> to the list.  The Approved: header can also appear in the first line
>>> of the body of the reply.
>> _______________________________________________
>> Openmp-commits mailing list
>> Openmp-commits at lists.llvm.org
>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openmp-commits
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Openmp-dev mailing list
>> Openmp-dev at lists.llvm.org
>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openmp-dev