Re: LLVM license change
Hi Benjamin, The point of interest is which compiler offers technological advantage without limitations and dependency. It is not the trendy product that retains users base, it's the more accessible, reliable and permissive. Theo said it: the moral values have been double (corporate) mortgaged. Kind regards, Anton
Re: LLVM license change
> And that is because corporate "contributor-wannabes" put pressure on the > LLVM foundation. > http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2015-October/091536.html > > It does say "this is an RFC" but that was last year. We are now in this > year: > http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2016-September/104778.html > > What I particularly do not like is the "IANAL but let's do it anyway" > drift emanating from a lot of high profile developers there. Well, I hope they do it. And then -- I hope a year or two later, some author of a component (especially one from Europe where the moral rights of an author still carries substantial weight) submarines the new licence, surfacing to indicate that they never signed off on the additional terms applied to them as a significant author, and will accept no cash to solve the problem. Then they are dead in the water. A cataclysm like CSRG went through. Then a fork of code on the original license can flourish. A fork based upon the last free version -- but let's remember that is the history of another piece of important software... So this problem could be fixed, if enough people care. In this situation, I suspect a few people are being paid a lot of wages to act as agents permitting theft from their co-contributors. They worked with others but now they are ready to steal from them. A list of all contributers (and every single one of them must agree) has not been published, so it is really likely this is a well-financed effort being performed by paralegals. Meanwhile day by day that list of contributors operating under the existing model is growing.. Someone is hoping they can get away with copyright theft. Want to have fun? Submit a major diff, which (seperately) in the submission says you'll never agree. Eventually most large projects find their inner Xfree86, I'm afraid to say.
Re: LLVM license change
On Tue, 27 Sep 2016 20:29:56 -0500 Amit Kulkarni wrote: > On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 8:06 PM, Chris Cappuccio > wrote: > > > Ingo Schwarze [schwa...@usta.de] wrote: > > > Hi Benjamin, > > > > > > kbenjamin Coplon wrote on Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 01:23:43PM -0400: > > > > > > > What does the OpenBSD community think about the LLVM proposal > > > > to move to the Apache license? > > > > > > > > http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2016-September/104778.html > > > > > > If LLVM would move to the Apache 2 license, we would become unable > > > to use versions released after that change, and would be stuck > > > with version released before the change, just like we are stuck > > > with pre-GPLv3 gcc now. So it would be very bad for us. > > > > > > See http://www.openbsd.org/policy.html : > > > > > > Apache > > > The original Apache license was similar to the Berkeley > > > license, but source code published under version 2 of the Apache > > > license is subject to additional restrictions and cannot be > > > included into OpenBSD. > > > > > > In a nutshell, OpenBSD does not consider software released under > > > Apache 2 to be free software. At least not free enough for us. > > > > > > > One major problem with the Apache 2.0 license is the fact that it > > is not merely a software license, but extends out into contract law. > > This has been a concern with many licenses, not just Apache. > > > > If you use Apache 2.0 license code, you lose rights that you > > otherwise retain under the MIT or BSD license. > > > > Just review sections 3 and 4. The patent clause in section 3 is an > > issue. > > > > https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.txt > > > > Chris > > > > > Ironically, LLVM wants protection against patents. > And that is because corporate "contributor-wannabes" put pressure on the LLVM foundation. http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2015-October/091536.html It does say "this is an RFC" but that was last year. We are now in this year: http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2016-September/104778.html What I particularly do not like is the "IANAL but let's do it anyway" drift emanating from a lot of high profile developers there.
Re: LLVM license change
On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 8:06 PM, Chris Cappuccio wrote: > Ingo Schwarze [schwa...@usta.de] wrote: > > Hi Benjamin, > > > > kbenjamin Coplon wrote on Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 01:23:43PM -0400: > > > > > What does the OpenBSD community think about the LLVM proposal to move > > > to the Apache license? > > > > > > http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2016-September/104778.html > > > > If LLVM would move to the Apache 2 license, we would become unable > > to use versions released after that change, and would be stuck with > > version released before the change, just like we are stuck with > > pre-GPLv3 gcc now. So it would be very bad for us. > > > > See http://www.openbsd.org/policy.html : > > > > Apache > > The original Apache license was similar to the Berkeley license, > > but source code published under version 2 of the Apache license > > is subject to additional restrictions and cannot be included > > into OpenBSD. > > > > In a nutshell, OpenBSD does not consider software released under > > Apache 2 to be free software. At least not free enough for us. > > > > One major problem with the Apache 2.0 license is the fact that it > is not merely a software license, but extends out into contract law. > This has been a concern with many licenses, not just Apache. > > If you use Apache 2.0 license code, you lose rights that you otherwise > retain under the MIT or BSD license. > > Just review sections 3 and 4. The patent clause in section 3 is an issue. > > https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.txt > > Chris > > Ironically, LLVM wants protection against patents.
Re: LLVM license change
Ingo Schwarze [schwa...@usta.de] wrote: > Hi Benjamin, > > kbenjamin Coplon wrote on Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 01:23:43PM -0400: > > > What does the OpenBSD community think about the LLVM proposal to move > > to the Apache license? > > > > http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2016-September/104778.html > > If LLVM would move to the Apache 2 license, we would become unable > to use versions released after that change, and would be stuck with > version released before the change, just like we are stuck with > pre-GPLv3 gcc now. So it would be very bad for us. > > See http://www.openbsd.org/policy.html : > > Apache > The original Apache license was similar to the Berkeley license, > but source code published under version 2 of the Apache license > is subject to additional restrictions and cannot be included > into OpenBSD. > > In a nutshell, OpenBSD does not consider software released under > Apache 2 to be free software. At least not free enough for us. > One major problem with the Apache 2.0 license is the fact that it is not merely a software license, but extends out into contract law. This has been a concern with many licenses, not just Apache. If you use Apache 2.0 license code, you lose rights that you otherwise retain under the MIT or BSD license. Just review sections 3 and 4. The patent clause in section 3 is an issue. https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.txt Chris
Re: LLVM license change
Hi Benjamin, kbenjamin Coplon wrote on Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 01:23:43PM -0400: > What does the OpenBSD community think about the LLVM proposal to move > to the Apache license? > > http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2016-September/104778.html If LLVM would move to the Apache 2 license, we would become unable to use versions released after that change, and would be stuck with version released before the change, just like we are stuck with pre-GPLv3 gcc now. So it would be very bad for us. See http://www.openbsd.org/policy.html : Apache The original Apache license was similar to the Berkeley license, but source code published under version 2 of the Apache license is subject to additional restrictions and cannot be included into OpenBSD. In a nutshell, OpenBSD does not consider software released under Apache 2 to be free software. At least not free enough for us. Yours, Ingo
LLVM license change
What does the OpenBSD community think about the LLVM proposal to move to the Apache license? http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2016-September/104778.html Thank you Benjamin Sauerhaft Coplon
