John Criswell
2012-Sep-20 00:47 UTC
[LLVMdev] Offer of membership to LLVM into the Software Freedom Conservancy, Inc.
On 9/19/12 6:04 PM, Owen Anderson wrote:> On Sep 19, 2012, at 3:56 PM, dag at cray.com wrote: > >> Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> writes: >>> We are not interested in copyright enforcement at all. In personal >>> discussions with Bradley, he mentioned that they may be able to help >>> us move the codebase to the MIT license, which would clarify that >>> issue as well as resolve the current issues around runtime libraries. >> Thanks for clarifying, this is helpful. What's the motivation for >> moving to the MIT license? Something more than general familiarity? >> >> What's the issue with runtime libraries? > I Am Not A Lawyer, etc…. > > My understanding is that the issue is about the "advertising" clause in the UIUC license, similar to old-style BSD licenses.Disclaimer: I Am Not A Lawyer. Maybe I'm missing something, but the UIUC license does not have the infamous advertising clause. The infamous BSD advertising clause required any *advertisements* to note the names of contributors; that gets problematic when you have lots of contributors. LLVM has never had this problem as we made sure to avoid it from the very beginning.> It generally isn't much of a problem to reproduce the copyright header in the documentation for a compiler that is based on LLVM.Correct. Furthermore, I think it's a desirable feature of the license.> However, it's not an appropriate clause for a runtime library that will be linked into applications compiled *by* LLVM. We don't want to force our users to have an LLVM copyright header included with their binaries just because we linked them against compiler-rt. That is why compiler-rt is dual licensed with the MIT license today.It sounds like your concern is with the clause that requires binary distributions of the code to contain the copyright notice and other legal stuff. Just to be picky, that's not the infamous BSD advertising clause; you're talking about another (completely valid but different) problem. That said, it sounds like compiler-rt is already dual licensed, so it seems like the problem is solved. Is there another problem with the UIUC license on core LLVM? -- John T.> > This, then, creates the issue that we have LLVM sub-projects that do not have the same license as the main project, which in turn means we can't free move code between the various sub-projects and the main project. I know that the Address Sanitizer guys have had issues with this when developing their runtime library. > > --Owen > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
John Criswell
2012-Sep-20 01:01 UTC
[LLVMdev] Offer of membership to LLVM into the Software Freedom Conservancy, Inc.
On 9/19/12 7:47 PM, John Criswell wrote:> [snip] > >> >> This, then, creates the issue that we have LLVM sub-projects that do >> not have the same license as the main project, which in turn means we >> can't free move code between the various sub-projects and the main >> project. I know that the Address Sanitizer guys have had issues with >> this when developing their runtime library.Sorry. Missed reading this last part. So the problem is being able to move code from the core compiler (which requires the license with binary distributions) to runtime libraries (for which binary license redistribution is a bad thing). Correct? Hrm. I am not a lawyer, but I don't think the MIT license gets you around the problem either. Both require copies or significant portions to carry the copyright notice; link in enough of the library, and one may be technically required to include the license. -- John T.>> >> --Owen >> _______________________________________________ >> LLVM Developers mailing list >> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu >> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev > > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
Chris Lattner
2012-Sep-20 06:31 UTC
[LLVMdev] Offer of membership to LLVM into the Software Freedom Conservancy, Inc.
On Sep 19, 2012, at 6:01 PM, John Criswell <criswell at illinois.edu> wrote:> On 9/19/12 7:47 PM, John Criswell wrote: >> [snip] >> >>> >>> This, then, creates the issue that we have LLVM sub-projects that do not have the same license as the main project, which in turn means we can't free move code between the various sub-projects and the main project. I know that the Address Sanitizer guys have had issues with this when developing their runtime library. > > Sorry. Missed reading this last part. > > So the problem is being able to move code from the core compiler (which requires the license with binary distributions) to runtime libraries (for which binary license redistribution is a bad thing). Correct? > > Hrm. I am not a lawyer, but I don't think the MIT license gets you around the problem either. Both require copies or significant portions to carry the copyright notice; link in enough of the library, and one may be technically required to include the license.Hi John, This is discussed here: http://llvm.org/docs/DeveloperPolicy.html#copyright-license-and-patents There are two different "advertising" clauses in the BSD license, depending on which version you're talking about. The UIUC license has just the "binary" attribution clause, but that is still problematic for runtime libraries. -Chris
Maybe Matching Threads
- [LLVMdev] Offer of membership to LLVM into the Software Freedom Conservancy, Inc.
- [LLVMdev] Offer of membership to LLVM into the Software Freedom Conservancy, Inc.
- [LLVMdev] Offer of membership to LLVM into the Software Freedom Conservancy, Inc.
- [LLVMdev] Offer of membership to LLVM into the Software Freedom Conservancy, Inc.
- [LLVMdev] Offer of membership to LLVM into the Software Freedom Conservancy, Inc.