llvm dev - Aug 2017 - Relicensing: Revised Developer Policy

> It is my interest to see my code used. In particular I am really excited
> to see llvm/clang/lld/lldb/etc replacing more and more of the previous
> components on these systems. I really don't want to harm that change.
>
> If FreeBSD and OpenBSD are OK with license X, I am OK with license X.
Rafael,

It is my understanding that Apache 2.0 licensed code will not be
integrated into OpenBSD under the current copyright policy:
https://www.openbsd.org/policy.html

This is problematic given that the default compiler on amd64 and i386
was just changed to clang:
https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-cvs&m=150109829003860

OpenBSD developers have previously made their position clear during
this discussion:
http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2017-April/112300.html

That said, Chris and others have made it clear that the relicensing
process will proceed as planned. LLVM will most likely be forked.

On 11 Aug 2017, at 17:02, Pavan Maddamsetti via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> 
>> It is my interest to see my code used. In particular I am really
excited
>> to see llvm/clang/lld/lldb/etc replacing more and more of the previous
>> components on these systems. I really don't want to harm that
change.
>> 
>> If FreeBSD and OpenBSD are OK with license X, I am OK with license X.
> 
> Rafael,
> 
> It is my understanding that Apache 2.0 licensed code will not be
> integrated into OpenBSD under the current copyright policy:
> https://www.openbsd.org/policy.html
> 
> This is problematic given that the default compiler on amd64 and i386
> was just changed to clang:
> https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-cvs&m=150109829003860
> 
> OpenBSD developers have previously made their position clear during
> this discussion:
> http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2017-April/112300.html
The problem, from the perspective of OpenBSD, appears to be precisely the
desired goal of the relicensing, so I don’t believe that there is any
possibility of satisfying both OpenBSD and everyone else simultaneously.
> That said, Chris and others have made it clear that the relicensing
> process will proceed as planned. LLVM will most likely be forked.
That would be unfortunate, but I doubt that a fork under the old license would
gain much traction as the employers of the vast majority of active contributors
are very keen on the patent protection clauses that are so problematic for
OpenBSD.

David

David Chisnall <David.Chisnall at cl.cam.ac.uk> writes:
>> That said, Chris and others have made it clear that the relicensing
>> process will proceed as planned. LLVM will most likely be forked.
>
> That would be unfortunate, but I doubt that a fork under the old license
would gain much traction as the employers of the vast majority of active
contributors are very keen on the patent protection clauses that are so
problematic for OpenBSD.
I will not agree to relicense any code if that would cut OpenBSD out.

Cheers,
Rafael