similar to: RFC #2: 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.

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

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.

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

> > > > 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

Hi Everyone, I’d like to start a discussion about how to improve some important issues we have in the LLVM community, regarding our license and patent policy. Before we get started, I’d like to emphasize that *this is an RFC*, intended for discussion. There is no time pressure to do something fast here -- we want to do the right long-term thing for the community (though we also don’t want

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 >

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

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.

> 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 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: >>>> >>>>

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 Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 8:59 AM, Rafael Espíndola <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > On 19 October 2015 at 13:57, Renato Golin via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> On 19 October 2015 at 18:12, David Chisnall via llvm-dev >> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >>> One worry is that Apache 2 is incompatible with GPLv2 (is it

On 04/18/2017 02:36 AM, David Chisnall via llvm-dev wrote: > Hi Chris, > > On 17 Apr 2017, at 15:37, Chris Lattner via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> ---- Exceptions to the Apache 2.0 License: —— >> >> As an exception, if, as a result of your compiling your source code, portions of this Software are embedded into an Object form of such source code,

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. >> >>> >>

On Sep 12, 2016, at 10:10 AM, Ed Schouten <ed at nuxi.nl> wrote: >> >> ---- end --- > > Just to make sure I get this straight, I can substitute 'this > Software' by the names of components provided by the LLVM project. This is the literal license text that will be included with each of these projects, so no, you cannot literally make that substitution.

On 19 October 2015 at 18:12, David Chisnall via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > One worry is that Apache 2 is incompatible with GPLv2 (is it incompatible with other licenses?) This is interesting, I did not know that... http://www.apache.org/licenses/GPL-compatibility.html "Despite our best efforts, the FSF has never considered the Apache License to be compatible

> 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

On 29 October 2015 at 10:25, Jonas Maebe via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Hi, > > Regarding the previously voiced concerns of incompatibilities between the > Apache and GPLv2 license, I'd like to add one more thing. > > I work on a, at this time mostly LLVM-unrelated [1], "GPLv2 or later" > licensed compiler: the Free Pascal Compiler. Some

> 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