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

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.

On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 2:59 PM, Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin.org>
wrote:
> 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.
>
No, I was asking for a reference, not legal advice.  If it turns into a
legal debate, *then* it's off topic.  If I have to start a private
conversation for every piece of information I want, what is the point of
community conversations like these?


-- 

Thanks,

Justin Holewinski
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20130110/14144429/attachment.html>

On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 12:13 PM, Justin Holewinski <
justin.holewinski at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 2:59 PM, Daniel Berlin <dberlin at
dberlin.org>wrote:
>
>> 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.
>>
>
> No, I was asking for a reference, not legal advice.  If it turns into a
> legal debate, *then* it's off topic.  If I have to start a private
> conversation for every piece of information I want, what is the point of
> community conversations like these?
>
It is, indeed, off topic. Danny is completely correct here.

The fact is that legal speculation, information, references, or anything
else *will* lead to a discussion, which shouldn't take place here. If you
want such information and to understand it, you should discuss it with a
lawyer.

This mailing list is for technical discussion. Let's keep it that way.


If you want to continue debating the semantics of this or whether or not to
discuss it on this list (something that seems a truly pointless meta
discussion), I'm asking you to take even that debate off the list so that
we can remain focused on the original question: C++11 features in LLVM and
Clang.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20130110/d9a4657c/attachment.html>

On 1/10/2013 2:13 PM, Justin Holewinski wrote:
> 
>> 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?
Here is a thread on using MS headers in FOSS for reference
when writing your own headers.

http://blog.2of1.org/2010/09/20/use-of-microsoft-windows-sdk-headers-as-foss-reference-ok/
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>
> 
> No, I was asking for a reference, not legal advice.  If it turns into a
> legal debate, *then* it's off topic.  If I have to start a private
> conversation for every piece of information I want, what is the point of
> community conversations like these?
> 
>