llvm dev - Oct 2015 - RFC: Improving license & patent issues in the LLVM community

On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 10:24 AM, Joachim Durchholz via llvm-dev
<llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> Am 19.10.2015 um 17:25 schrieb Chris Lattner via llvm-dev:
>>
>> Unfortunately, adding the Apache CLA also has several disadvantages
>> as well:
>>
>> - It adds new barriers for new contributors to LLVM.  We don’t
>> currently have a process where you need to sign (or click through) a
>> form, and adding one is a barrier in certain situations (e.g. it
>> requires individuals to disclose sensitive personal information like
>> mailing addresses etc, and may require extra levels of legal approval
>> in corporate situations).
>
>
> If you want to extend a patent license to any LLVM user, you need legal
> approval from the patent holder, and that inevitably means paperwork.
Speaking as an IP lawyer, No it does not require more than the CLA or
the license provide.
Period.
If you want details, i'm happy to chat, but suffice to say, either of
the CLA or relicensing option would provide the same patent
protection.

Am 19.10.2015 um 19:40 schrieb Daniel Berlin:
 > On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 10:24 AM, Joachim Durchholz via llvm-dev
 > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
 >> Am 19.10.2015 um 17:25 schrieb Chris Lattner via llvm-dev:
 >>>
 >>> Unfortunately, adding the Apache CLA also has several
disadvantages
 >>> as well:
 >>>
 >>> - It adds new barriers for new contributors to LLVM.  We don’t
 >>> currently have a process where you need to sign (or click through)
a
 >>> form, and adding one is a barrier in certain situations (e.g. it
 >>> requires individuals to disclose sensitive personal information
like
 >>> mailing addresses etc, and may require extra levels of legal
approval
 >>> in corporate situations).
 >>
 >> If you want to extend a patent license to any LLVM user, you need
legal
 >> approval from the patent holder, and that inevitably means paperwork.
 >
 > Speaking as an IP lawyer, No it does not require more than the CLA or
 > the license provide.

Then how is a change in licensing needed at all?

On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 12:39 PM, Joachim Durchholz via llvm-dev
<llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> Am 19.10.2015 um 19:40 schrieb Daniel Berlin:
>> On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 10:24 AM, Joachim Durchholz via llvm-dev
>> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>> Am 19.10.2015 um 17:25 schrieb Chris Lattner via llvm-dev:
>>>>
>>>> Unfortunately, adding the Apache CLA also has several
disadvantages
>>>> as well:
>>>>
>>>> - It adds new barriers for new contributors to LLVM.  We don’t
>>>> currently have a process where you need to sign (or click
through) a
>>>> form, and adding one is a barrier in certain situations (e.g.
it
>>>> requires individuals to disclose sensitive personal information
like
>>>> mailing addresses etc, and may require extra levels of legal
approval
>>>> in corporate situations).
>>>
>>> If you want to extend a patent license to any LLVM user, you need
legal
>>> approval from the patent holder, and that inevitably means
paperwork.
>>
>> Speaking as an IP lawyer, No it does not require more than the CLA or
>> the license provide.
>
> Then how is a change in licensing needed at all?
The CLA =  the Apache CLA option
The License = The Apache License option

Since neither of those options is currently used, ...