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

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

I find it a bit unfair to discuss such a major change offlist.

Cheers,
Rafael

Chris Lattner <sabre at nondot.org> writes:
> 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

On Mon, May 1, 2017 at 9:30 PM, Rafael Avila de Espindola via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> I find it a bit unfair to discuss such a major change offlist.
>
I'm certain the board and many others discuss things offlist which are
quite important. Lack of transparency isn't always at the disadvantage of
the whole group, but sometimes just a way to handle specific instances
where it's more efficient.

I can's speak for Lattner, but my best guess is it's unlikely that some
hidden agenda or motivation is going on and probably just him being caring
enough to take the 1-on-1 time to make sure your questions are answered.
(Without having to repeat it here again - Assuming it was answered already)

Personally, I love to watch all the armchair lawyers pop up when these
types of discussions happen.

source code + license + open discussion != efficient
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20170501/888d28a6/attachment.html>