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

I really really do not like armchair lawyer discussions and this is
just flamebait if I've ever seen it...
---------------
#1 Is the submarine patent risk really that bad? (What's driving this)

#2 Pragmatically have "you" even considered how to execute on this
relicense plan?
a. What if one of the copyright holders doesn't agree?
b. What audit procedure do you plan to use
c. Legal costs??? Is Apple or Google going to pay the bill or is some
poor non-profit going to get stuck with it
d. What's the project downside
i. Fragmentation from people who feel strongly against the APL2 license...
ii. Lost cycles because people who could be writing code are pandering
on about licensing

> On Oct 19, 2015, at 10:44 AM, C Bergström via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> 
> I really really do not like armchair lawyer discussions and this is
> just flamebait if I've ever seen it...
> ---------------
> #1 Is the submarine patent risk really that bad? (What's driving this)
It is a non-issue until it is a major issue.  As I tried to explain in the
writeup, at best, “submarine patents” are at best a tertiary issue.  The other
two issues are driving issues and actively causing a problem.
> #2 Pragmatically have "you" even considered how to execute on
this
> relicense plan?
The answer is “yes”, but I’d prefer to keep the focus of this discussion on
“what the right thing is” and now “how to roll it out”.  It is clear that it
will take a lot of time and be expensive, but if relicensing is the right thing
to do, then lets do it.

-Chris

> On Oct 19, 2015, at 12:59 PM, Chris Lattner via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> 
> 
>> On Oct 19, 2015, at 10:44 AM, C Bergström via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>> 
>> I really really do not like armchair lawyer discussions and this is
>> just flamebait if I've ever seen it...
>> ---------------
>> #1 Is the submarine patent risk really that bad? (What's driving
this)
> 
> It is a non-issue until it is a major issue.  As I tried to explain in the
writeup, at best, “submarine patents” are at best a tertiary issue.  The other
two issues are driving issues and actively causing a problem.
> 
>> #2 Pragmatically have "you" even considered how to execute on
this
>> relicense plan?
> 
> The answer is “yes”, but I’d prefer to keep the focus of this discussion on
“what the right thing is” and now “how to roll it out”.
^ and NOT “how to roll it out”.

>  It is clear that it will take a lot of time and be expensive, but if
relicensing is the right thing to do, then lets do it.
> 
> -Chris
> 
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev

Am 19.10.2015 um 19:44 schrieb C Bergström:
 > I really really do not like armchair lawyer discussions and this is
 > just flamebait if I've ever seen it...

If you want to discuss Chris' plan, talk to Chris. I felt his posting 
had questions implied and tried to answer them from my perspective, best 
as I could.
If my posting was misinterpreted as mere flamebait, I guess my feedback 
isn't helpful or welcome, so I'll just shut up.