similar to: New license landing 2019-01-18 (end of next week!)

We're getting the last things in place, and expect in roughly one hour we will pause all commit access while we put in place the various mechanical pieces of this. I will send a somewhat detailed email reminding people of what has changed when everything opens back up. If this takes us more than 1-2 hours, I'll send an update with a rough time estimate. Details in case you missed the

> 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

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

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 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

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 >

> 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 Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 7:43 PM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > > On 09/13/2017 02:16 AM, C Bergström wrote: > > A completely non-technical point, but what's the current "polly" license? > Does integrating that code conflict in any way with the work being done to > relicense llvm? > > > Good question. I discussed this explicitly with

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

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

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 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

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 The Samba Team disapproves strongly of the actions taken by Novell on November 2nd. One of the fundamental differences between the proprietary software world and the free software world is that the proprietary software world divides users by forcing them to agree to coercive licensing agreements which restrict their rights to share with each other,

Hi all, Some history. Samba has historically only accepted code with personal, not corporate copyright attached. There were a couple of good reasons for this in the past, one of which was that we preferred GPL enforcement decisions to be made by individuals, not by corporations. Under GPLv2, a license violator loses all rights under the license and these have to be reinstated by the copyright

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

Hi, I realise that the GPL license question has been discussed in 2003 and in 2007, extensively. Back then, the conclusion seem to have been that in-process usage is not possible for most use-cases and that instead, a network layer/IPC mechanism is required to use Xapian with any non-GPL software. I think the project is severely undermining its own potential success. I see that there are even

Hi, Is using Red Hat site for documentation legal? If I understand correctly you have to be a customer of Red Hat to be allowed to use their bandwidth: https://access.redhat.com/help/terms/ "2. Terms Applicable to Red Hat Content. In order to access a Red Hat Portal and Red Hat Content, you must be a current Customer of Red Hat or its affiliates [.......] "Some Red Hat Content may

Samba adopts GPLv3 for future releases. --------------------------------------- After internal consideration in the Samba Team we have decided to adopt the GPLv3 and LGPLv3 licences for all future releases of Samba. The GPLv3 is the updated version of the GPLv2 license under which Samba is currently distributed. It has been updated to improve compatibility with other licenses and to make it

Samba adopts GPLv3 for future releases. --------------------------------------- After internal consideration in the Samba Team we have decided to adopt the GPLv3 and LGPLv3 licences for all future releases of Samba. The GPLv3 is the updated version of the GPLv2 license under which Samba is currently distributed. It has been updated to improve compatibility with other licenses and to make it