Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

LLVM Still Pursuing Apache 2.0 License + GPLv2 Compatibility

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • LLVM Still Pursuing Apache 2.0 License + GPLv2 Compatibility

    Phoronix: LLVM Still Pursuing Apache 2.0 License + GPLv2 Compatibility

    It's been a while since last talking about the discussions among LLVM developers about re-licensing the project. The re-licensing is moving forward and they are settling on the Apache 2.0 license plus explicitly stating compatibility with GPLv2...

    Phoronix, Linux Hardware Reviews, Linux hardware benchmarks, Linux server benchmarks, Linux benchmarking, Desktop Linux, Linux performance, Open Source graphics, Linux How To, Ubuntu benchmarks, Ubuntu hardware, Phoronix Test Suite

  • #2
    Apache License is a pretty big license (as is the GPL) and much bigger than the current University of Illinois/NCSA Open Source License.
    They should just switch to 2-clause BSD or the ISC license instead. It is much shorter and much more similar to the existing license.

    Comment


    • #3
      Was just about to say that, uid313.

      I don't understand this at all. If you add these conditions like GPLv2 compatibility and binary attribution then you have a nonstandard Apache 2.0 license, which makes it not compatible with all the Apache licenses out there. Wouldn't it be better for them to go with something very permissive. Like the 2-clause BSD license or MIT license?

      Comment


      • #4
        I can't imagine the FreeBSD folks will be very happy. Wasn't one of the reasons they switched from GCC to LLVM, that LLVM was BSD licensed?

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by thunderbird32 View Post
          I can't imagine the FreeBSD folks will be very happy. Wasn't one of the reasons they switched from GCC to LLVM, that LLVM was BSD licensed?
          No. They switched from GCC to LLVM because of GPL v3. While LLVM is not GPL v3, FreeBSD people will be fine.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by thunderbird32 View Post
            Wasn't one of the reasons they switched from GCC to LLVM, that LLVM was BSD licensed?
            Yes, very much so.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by EmbraceUnity View Post
              I don't understand this at all. If you add these conditions like GPLv2 compatibility and binary attribution then you have a nonstandard Apache 2.0 license, which makes it not compatible with all the Apache licenses out there. Wouldn't it be better for them to go with something very permissive. Like the 2-clause BSD license or MIT license?
              That's essentially what they have today with the NCSA/UIUC license... essentially a bug-fixed X11 license.

              AFAIK the problems they are trying to solve are (a) compiler and runtime libraries currently use different licenses (NCSA/UIUC for compiler, NCSA/UIUC + MIT dual license for runtime) which makes code movement problematic, (b) patent issues are covered by developer policy statement but not the license itself, which causes problems for some contributors.

              AFAIK issue (b) is the primary one driving the proposed change, although my low-quality impression is that moving to Apache simply shifts patent-related problems to a different set of contributors, ie it replaces "very low chance of problems but very serious if they happen" with "greater chance of problems but less serious if they happen". Something like that anyways.
              Last edited by bridgman; 19 September 2016, 12:25 PM.
              Test signature

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by EmbraceUnity View Post
                Wouldn't it be better for them to go with something very permissive. Like the 2-clause BSD license or MIT license?
                No, permisive licenses are made for projects non engaded in competition. If they want to stay relevant they should choose non permissive license.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by EmbraceUnity View Post
                  Was just about to say that, uid313.

                  I don't understand this at all. If you add these conditions like GPLv2 compatibility and binary attribution then you have a nonstandard Apache 2.0 license, which makes it not compatible with all the Apache licenses out there. Wouldn't it be better for them to go with something very permissive. Like the 2-clause BSD license or MIT license?
                  As the Apache 2.0 license is permissive, straight Apache 2.0 licensed code may be linked with code under a bastardized nonstandard version of the Apache license. Even with a nonstandard Apache 2.0 license, they still have a permissive license. The Apache license is very long in comparison to the BSD license or the MIT license, but it is IMHO even more permissive than MIT and BSD.

                  https://tldrlegal.com/license/apache....0-(apache-2.0)

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Pawlerson View Post

                    No, permisive licenses are made for projects non engaded in competition. If they want to stay relevant they should choose non permissive license.
                    Then tell me why the MIT-License was the most popular free software license as of 2015, according to Black Duck Software and GitHub.

                    In fact, many Projects using the MIT-License are the best of their kind such as Jenkins CI, Dropbear SSH server, Bouncy Castle crypto library, and so on...

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X