llvm dev - Jan 2013 - [LLVMdev] Using C++'11 language features in LLVM itself

>>
>>  I do not think you can legally make clang a system compiler on
>> Windows without licensing headers/libraries from Microsoft.
>> So inability to parse all of the SDK headers is a non issue to me,
>> can't use them anyway.
>
>
> Care to cite a source?
Please don't (either of you) randomly speculate on the legality of
clang/LLVM.

To be perfectly blunt (without trying to actually be offensive):
You aren't qualified, and it's not helpful or productive.

On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 1:31 PM, Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin.org>
wrote:
> >>
> >>  I do not think you can legally make clang a system compiler on
> >> Windows without licensing headers/libraries from Microsoft.
> >> So inability to parse all of the SDK headers is a non issue to me,
> >> can't use them anyway.
> >
> >
> > Care to cite a source?
>
> Please don't (either of you) randomly speculate on the legality of
> clang/LLVM.
>
> To be perfectly blunt (without trying to actually be offensive):
> You aren't qualified, and it's not helpful or productive.
>
It's not speculation, it's asking for references to information.  If
there
was interpretation, then I would agree.  But there is not.

-- 

Thanks,

Justin Holewinski
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20130110/060c9751/attachment.html>

On 1/10/2013 12:31 PM, Daniel Berlin wrote:
>>>
>>>  I do not think you can legally make clang a system compiler on
>>> Windows without licensing headers/libraries from Microsoft.
>>> So inability to parse all of the SDK headers is a non issue to me,
>>> can't use them anyway.
>>
>>
>> Care to cite a source?
> 
> Please don't (either of you) randomly speculate on the legality of
clang/LLVM.
I am not speculating about legality of clang/LLVM.

But I will point out that raison d'etre for MingW existence
seems to be the ability to freely distribute their
Win32 headers and libraries.
> 
> To be perfectly blunt (without trying to actually be offensive):
> You aren't qualified, and it's not helpful or productive.
Using anything blunt usually is not very effective.
I would advise some finesse, won't hurt your productivity
and might even be helpful.
> 
> 

Paweł

On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 2:18 PM, Justin Holewinski
<justin.holewinski at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 1:31 PM, Daniel Berlin <dberlin at
dberlin.org> wrote:
>>
>> >>
>> >>  I do not think you can legally make clang a system compiler
on
>> >> Windows without licensing headers/libraries from Microsoft.
>> >> So inability to parse all of the SDK headers is a non issue to
me,
>> >> can't use them anyway.
>> >
>> >
>> > Care to cite a source?
>>
>> Please don't (either of you) randomly speculate on the legality of
>> clang/LLVM.
>>
>> To be perfectly blunt (without trying to actually be offensive):
>> You aren't qualified, and it's not helpful or productive.
>
>
> It's not speculation, it's asking for references to information. 
If there
> was interpretation, then I would agree.  But there is not.
The only place it could possibly lead is a discussion of legal issues
around llvm/clang, which are not on-topic for this list.
If ya'll want to have a private discussion about it, go ahead.
But don't do it here.