similar to: RFC: Improving license & patent issues in the LLVM community

> On Nov 1, 2016, at 12:21 PM, Joerg Sonnenberger via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 09:16:47AM -0700, Chris Lattner via llvm-dev wrote: >> The goals of this effort are outlined in the previous email but, in short, we aim to: >> - encourage ongoing contributions to LLVM by preserving low barrier to entry for contributors.

> On Aug 10, 2017, at 2:59 PM, Rafael Avila de Espindola <rafael.espindola at gmail.com> wrote: > > I can find old threads about it, but nothing saying why it was decided > that contributor agreement wouldn't work. Care to send the URL? Here are some quick points that come to mind: 1. It raises the bar to contribution, because something must be “signed” before a

On Aug 10, 2017, at 3:08 PM, Rafael Avila de Espindola via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Chris Lattner <clattner at llvm.org> writes: > >>> On Aug 10, 2017, at 2:59 PM, Rafael Avila de Espindola <rafael.espindola at gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> I can find old threads about it, but nothing saying why it was decided >>> that

On Oct 19, 2015, at 10:53 AM, Joerg Sonnenberger <joerg at britannica.bec.de> wrote: >>>> 2) We could require new contributors to sign the Apache CLA. >>> >>> To me, this is the most acceptable option of the listed terms. >> >> Please explain: why? > > First part for me is that switching the code to a different license > doesn't

On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 5:16 AM, Joerg Sonnenberger via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 09:54:30PM -0700, Chris Lattner wrote: >> On Oct 19, 2015, at 10:53 AM, Joerg Sonnenberger <joerg at britannica.bec.de> wrote: >> >>>> 2) We could require new contributors to sign the Apache CLA. >> >>> >>

This has already been discussed extensively in the public. The threads are available in the archives. -Chris > On Aug 10, 2017, at 1:05 PM, Rafael Avila de Espindola <rafael.espindola at gmail.com> wrote: > > Sorry, but I really don't think a private conversation is appropriate > for such discussions. > > If the motive cannot be explained in public I have no choice

Hello everyone, This email is a continuation of a discussion from almost a year ago, started back here: http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2015-October/091536.html As described in that email, this is a complicated topic and deals with sensitive legal issues. I am not a lawyer, and this email is not intended to be legal advice in the formal sense. That said, I have spoken with many

> On Oct 19, 2015, at 9:27 AM, Joerg Sonnenberger via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 08:25:16AM -0700, Chris Lattner via llvm-dev wrote: >> 1) We could introduce a novel legal solution. > > Please, no. > >> 2) We could require new contributors to sign the Apache CLA. > > To me, this is the most acceptable

On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 8:03 AM, David Chisnall <David.Chisnall at cl.cam.ac.uk> wrote: > On 3 Nov 2016, at 14:50, Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin.org> wrote: > >> In particular, various corporate lawyers were worried about this > scenario that neuters defensive patents): > > Lawyers see risk everywhere, so i'll just go with "various corporate >

I don’t have a link off hand. Two major points: 1) CLA’s in general require an additional approval step, which reduces contributions. 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.

Hi David, Sorry for the delay getting back to you, been a bit buried: On Oct 19, 2015, at 10:12 AM, David Chisnall <David.Chisnall at cl.cam.ac.uk> wrote: >> The TL;DR version of this is that I think we should discuss relicensing all of LLVM under the Apache 2.0 license and add a runtime exception clause. See below for a lot more details. > > I agree that this is a problem.

Hi all, Now that we’ve settled on the license legalese to get to, we need to start the process of relicensing. We’re still sorting through all of the details of what this will take, but the first step is clear: new contributions to LLVM will need to be under both the old license structure and the new one (until the old structure is completely phased out). From a mechanical perspective, this is

Hi Rafael, We’ve discussed why a license change is preferable over the span of several years now. I’m happy to explain over the phone, contact me off list and we can talk. -Chris > On Aug 10, 2017, at 8:33 AM, Rafael Avila de Espindola <rafael.espindola at gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi, > > I still don't see any justification in the text why a license change is >

Hi Rafael, I believe that all of these points are covered in the first round of discussion, including the FreeBSD team’s position. -Chris > On Apr 27, 2017, at 2:43 PM, Rafael Espíndola via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Sorry for the delay, I was on vacations. > > Ed, what is the FreeBSD position about the apache version 2 in base? A > quick search

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

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: >>>> >>>>

> > > > I’m still not completely convinced by this argument, given that the > majority of patent lawsuits come from NPEs. That is not necessarily where the majority of patent lawsuit *danger* comes from, and i'd argue, pretty strongly, it's not the most likely case for LLVM. > We’d still be in the situation where a malicious contributor could: > > 1. Spin up a

Hello everyone, This email is a continuation of a discussion started in October 2015, and continued in September 2016: http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2015-October/091536.html http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2016-September/104778.html As with those emails, this is a complicated topic and deals with sensitive legal issues. I am not a lawyer, and this email is not intended to be

Hi all, I fear this discussion will quickly devolve into a recursive flame- fest, but it needs to be broached, so here we go. Note that I kind of think this is more of dev topic than users, but I want to make sure everyone knows the conversation is happening and can easily participate. This is also likely to be the first of a series of conversations I''ll be starting to try to

> It is my interest to see my code used. In particular I am really excited > to see llvm/clang/lld/lldb/etc replacing more and more of the previous > components on these systems. I really don't want to harm that change. > > If FreeBSD and OpenBSD are OK with license X, I am OK with license X. Rafael, It is my understanding that Apache 2.0 licensed code will not be integrated