LLVM license change

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
7 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

LLVM license change

kbenjamin Coplon
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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: LLVM license change

Ingo Schwarze
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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: LLVM license change

Chris Cappuccio
Ingo Schwarze [[hidden email]] 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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: LLVM license change

Amit Kulkarni-5
On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 8:06 PM, Chris Cappuccio <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Ingo Schwarze [[hidden email]] 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.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: LLVM license change

bytevolcano
On Tue, 27 Sep 2016 20:29:56 -0500
Amit Kulkarni <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 8:06 PM, Chris Cappuccio <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > Ingo Schwarze [[hidden email]] 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.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: LLVM license change

Theo de Raadt-2
> 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.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: LLVM license change

lists-2
In reply to this post by kbenjamin Coplon
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