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

> On Apr 29, 2017, at 8:03 AM, Rafael Avila de Espindola via llvm-dev
<llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> 
> Chris Lattner <clattner at llvm.org> writes:
> 
>> I don’t have a link off hand.  Two major points:
>> 
>> 1) CLA’s in general require an additional approval step, which reduces
contributions.
> 
> Yes, that is the cost I mention in the email. I think it is better to
> take this cost than to impose a new license on the users.
For a variety of reasons, we need to change the license.  “Just adding a CLA on
top of what we have” isn’t an option.
> 
>> 2) The apache CLA in general gives too much power (e.g. the power to
relicense arbitrarily going forward) to the organization (in this case, llvm.org
<http://llvm.org/>) which can deter contributions from folks who don’t
want relicensing to be a simple act.
> 
> But that is a property of only some CLAs, no? We don't need or want (I
> hope) that property. We just want to make sure contributions can be used
> without worrying about patents.
Rafael, I appreciate your interest in this topic, but all of these ideas were
discussed in the first round.  Please refer back to that thread, which I linked
to in the first post on this thread.

-Chris

On April 29, 2017 12:46:35 PM EDT, Chris Lattner <clattner at llvm.org>
wrote:
>
>> On Apr 29, 2017, at 8:03 AM, Rafael Avila de Espindola via llvm-dev
><llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>> 
>> Chris Lattner <clattner at llvm.org> writes:
>> 
>>> I don’t have a link off hand.  Two major points:
>>> 
>>> 1) CLA’s in general require an additional approval step, which
>reduces contributions.
>> 
>> Yes, that is the cost I mention in the email. I think it is better to
>> take this cost than to impose a new license on the users.
>
>For a variety of reasons, we need to change the license.  “Just adding
>a CLA on top of what we have” isn’t an option.

Could you please explain why? As it stands I don't agree with changing the
license to any code I may have copyright to.

Cheers,
Rafael

-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

I will follow up with you offlist.

-Chris
> On Apr 29, 2017, at 3:01 PM, Rafael Avila de Espindola via llvm-dev
<llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> On April 29, 2017 12:46:35 PM EDT, Chris Lattner <clattner at
llvm.org> wrote:
>> 
>>> On Apr 29, 2017, at 8:03 AM, Rafael Avila de Espindola via llvm-dev
>> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Chris Lattner <clattner at llvm.org> writes:
>>> 
>>>> I don’t have a link off hand.  Two major points:
>>>> 
>>>> 1) CLA’s in general require an additional approval step, which
>> reduces contributions.
>>> 
>>> Yes, that is the cost I mention in the email. I think it is better
to
>>> take this cost than to impose a new license on the users.
>> 
>> For a variety of reasons, we need to change the license.  “Just adding
>> a CLA on top of what we have” isn’t an option.
> 
> 
> Could you please explain why? As it stands I don't agree with changing
the license to any code I may have copyright to.
> 
> Cheers,
> Rafael
> 
> -- 
> Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev