On 07/06/2011 05:13 AM, Chris Lattner wrote:> On Jul 5, 2011, at 7:37 AM, Tor Gunnar Houeland wrote: >> The runtime library components state that they are licensed under >> http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php which does not >> contain a specific clause regarding binary redistribution. This seems to >> have been interpreted as not placing any restrictions on binary >> redistribution, i.e. that "all copies" has somehow been interpreted as >> "copies in source code form". (Different licenses such as Boost, zlib, >> and bzip2 etc. do not require copyright notices for binary redistributions.) >> >> Is it sufficient to include the MIT copyright notices from >> http://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/compiler-rt/trunk/LICENSE.TXT / >> http://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/libcxx/trunk/LICENSE.TXT for programs >> compiled with LLVM? (Probably including the respective CREDITS.TXT files >> as a courtesy, although there doesn't seem to be any actual requirements >> to indicate that it's for Compiler-RT/libc++) > There is no need to include any notices in the binaries of an application built with clang, or some with some other application that links to the LLVM runtime libraries that are dual licensed.Thanks for your response. Is this ability to distribute binaries without notices based on your personal assertion that the MIT license used does not require them? (I do not use clang but I assumed you were just clarifying front-end vs back-end, and that it's not because of a guarantee offered to clang users, an automatic inclusion of the notice stuffed inside binaries created using clang, or anything like that?) The license in LICENSE.TXT actually lists the following conditions, which do not exclude binaries: The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software. (See e.g. http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=610257 , http://ideas.opensource.org/ticket/45 , about:license#expat in Firefox compared to about:license#optional-notices , or Help->Acknowledgments in Safari) Is there anything else that would permit distributing the runtime libraries without complying with the LICENSE.TXT conditions? - Tor Gunnar
On Jul 6, 2011, at 1:55 AM, Tor Gunnar Houeland wrote:>>> Is it sufficient to include the MIT copyright notices from >>> http://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/compiler-rt/trunk/LICENSE.TXT / >>> http://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/libcxx/trunk/LICENSE.TXT for programs >>> compiled with LLVM? (Probably including the respective CREDITS.TXT files >>> as a courtesy, although there doesn't seem to be any actual requirements >>> to indicate that it's for Compiler-RT/libc++) >> There is no need to include any notices in the binaries of an application built with clang, or some with some other application that links to the LLVM runtime libraries that are dual licensed. > Thanks for your response. Is this ability to distribute binaries without notices based on your personal assertion that the MIT license used does not require them?Yes. I am not a lawyer and am not giving legal advice. This is based on my understanding of the MIT license. -Chris
On 07/06/2011 07:10 PM, Chris Lattner wrote:> On Jul 6, 2011, at 1:55 AM, Tor Gunnar Houeland wrote: > >>> There is no need to include any notices in the binaries of an application built with clang, or some with some other application that links to the LLVM runtime libraries that are dual licensed. >> Thanks for your response. Is this ability to distribute binaries without notices based on your personal assertion that the MIT license used does not require them? > Yes. I am not a lawyer and am not giving legal advice. This is based on my understanding of the MIT license.OK, thanks. That's contradictory to the actual conditions written in the license, and as such the dual-licensing does not serve that purpose. Could http://llvm.org/docs/DeveloperPolicy.html#license be updated to reflect that? (Or do you strongly disagree that "all copies of the software" includes "binary"? When changing the license, you mentioned an example of Mozilla building with Clang. As can be seen in about:license, they consider MIT licenses to require reproduction of the license text. What's your reasoning for your understanding?) I really agree with the intentions, it would be nice for user-compiled programs not to unwittingly include code that imposes licensing conditions. It would be great if it were feasible to also provide such a different license, or additional permissions similar to what GNU libstdc++ does. - Tor Gunnar