llvm dev - Apr 2017 - RFC #3: Improving license & patent issues in the LLVM community

On Apr 18, 2017, at 4:59 AM, David Chisnall via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> My chief concern is that if I do (for any foo.cc):
> 
> $ c++ -static foo.cc
> 
> Then the resulting a.out should not come with any attribution requirements
(for compiler-rt or libc++).  If it does, then we are going to end up with a
large number of accidental license violations.
Right.  The intention is that that does not require attribution due to the
exception.

-Chris

On 19 Apr 2017, at 05:45, Chris Lattner <clattner at llvm.org>
wrote:
> 
> On Apr 18, 2017, at 4:59 AM, David Chisnall via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>> My chief concern is that if I do (for any foo.cc):
>> 
>> $ c++ -static foo.cc
>> 
>> Then the resulting a.out should not come with any attribution
requirements (for compiler-rt or libc++).  If it does, then we are going to end
up with a large number of accidental license violations.
> 
> Right.  The intention is that that does not require attribution due to the
exception.
In that case, this looks good to me.  In addition to the license, please can we
put together an FAQ explicitly discussing these cases and indicating what we
believe the license requires of people?

David

Umm.. How is Apple or another large company currently handling this if
the current situation is unacceptable? Doesn't Apple ship libc++ by
default? Is it telling them to give attribution in every program
somewhere?

On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 3:53 PM, David Chisnall via llvm-dev
<llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> On 19 Apr 2017, at 05:45, Chris Lattner <clattner at llvm.org> wrote:
>>
>> On Apr 18, 2017, at 4:59 AM, David Chisnall via llvm-dev <llvm-dev
at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>> My chief concern is that if I do (for any foo.cc):
>>>
>>> $ c++ -static foo.cc
>>>
>>> Then the resulting a.out should not come with any attribution
requirements (for compiler-rt or libc++).  If it does, then we are going to end
up with a large number of accidental license violations.
>>
>> Right.  The intention is that that does not require attribution due to
the exception.
>
> In that case, this looks good to me.  In addition to the license, please
can we put together an FAQ explicitly discussing these cases and indicating what
we believe the license requires of people?
>
> David
>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev

> On Apr 19, 2017, at 12:53 AM, David Chisnall via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> 
> On 19 Apr 2017, at 05:45, Chris Lattner <clattner at llvm.org> wrote:
>> 
>> On Apr 18, 2017, at 4:59 AM, David Chisnall via llvm-dev <llvm-dev
at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>> My chief concern is that if I do (for any foo.cc):
>>> 
>>> $ c++ -static foo.cc
>>> 
>>> Then the resulting a.out should not come with any attribution
requirements (for compiler-rt or libc++).  If it does, then we are going to end
up with a large number of accidental license violations.
>> 
>> Right.  The intention is that that does not require attribution due to
the exception.
> 
> In that case, this looks good to me.  In addition to the license, please
can we put together an FAQ explicitly discussing these cases and indicating what
we believe the license requires of people?
Yes.  In the “rolling this out” stage of the proposal, we’ll have a concrete
patch to apply to the developer policy which will include the FAQ content.

-Chris