Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 18

Thread: LLVM Spun Off Into Its Own Independent, Non-Profit

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    15,098

    Default LLVM Spun Off Into Its Own Independent, Non-Profit

    Phoronix: LLVM Spun Off Into Its Own Independent, Non-Profit

    For years I've heard of LLVM planning to spin off into its own non-profit, independent organization and today that's finally moving forward...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTY1Mzg

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    366

    Default Fantastic!

    Coolest news I've heard all year.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    74

    Default

    What they should do is release the code under GPLv3. As it is, LLVM can be used as the basis for non-free compilers.
    As long as LLVM keeps this license I'll stick to gcc.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    France
    Posts
    593

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Viper_Scull View Post
    What they should do is release the code under GPLv3. As it is, LLVM can be used as the basis for non-free compilers.
    As long as LLVM keeps this license I'll stick to gcc.
    I presume they would need the agreement of all their contributors? Also, this isn't their design goal.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    743

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Calinou View Post
    I presume they would need the agreement of all their contributors? Also, this isn't their design goal.
    No, on the contrary.
    You can download the code, and license the whole lot under GPLv3.
    Well, anybody that has a BSD licensed version of the code can still distribute it under BSD, so it's a bit pointless of course (that first license cannot be revoked, even by contributors).

    But still, you can fork the project and only accept GPLv3 contributions in your tree.
    Or fork the project and add only proprietary parts.
    Thing is, I doubt that LLVM will ever go the GPL way, because if it happens the corporate contributors would just fork and continue developing on a BSD only codebase. Just as they don't mind missing on the proprietary bits they cannot include, they'll probably don't mind either on the GPL ones that cannot be incorporated either.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    113

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Viper_Scull View Post
    What they should do is release the code under GPLv3. As it is, LLVM can be used as the basis for non-free compilers.
    As long as LLVM keeps this license I'll stick to gcc.
    There is a lot of permissive software in the world of Free Software with a rich and vibrant history. Xorg and Wayland come to mind.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    366

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Viper_Scull View Post
    What they should do is release the code under GPLv3. As it is, LLVM can be used as the basis for non-free compilers.
    As long as LLVM keeps this license I'll stick to gcc.
    Which indicates that you don't understand why Apple sponsored this program in the first place. GPL 3 is a terrible license and as such rational corporations, even individuals avoid it like the plaque. As for this garbage about non free compilers who really cares, considering the size of the world you have no idea how GPL based code is used in different places. When working with open source it is far better to use code that is licensed in a way the frees you as the user instead of being out in a legal jail like GPL 3 puts you in.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    366

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Calinou View Post
    I presume they would need the agreement of all their contributors? Also, this isn't their design goal.
    Not at all! LLVM rapid rise in popularity is directly related to many corporations and individuals rejecting GPL 3 and the terrible restrictions it puts on code. It has been the intent of the developers to keep LLVM and sub projects open source, they just do so with a more rational license.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    366

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by erendorn View Post
    No, on the contrary.
    You can download the code, and license the whole lot under GPLv3.
    Well, anybody that has a BSD licensed version of the code can still distribute it under BSD, so it's a bit pointless of course (that first license cannot be revoked, even by contributors).

    But still, you can fork the project and only accept GPLv3 contributions in your tree.
    Which indicates that LLVM is pretty free as source code.
    Or fork the project and add only proprietary parts.
    Thing is, I doubt that LLVM will ever go the GPL way, because if it happens the corporate contributors would just fork and continue developing on a BSD only codebase.
    There have already been some modest forks of the code base but like most open source projects there are more advantages to staying with the program instead of going off on your own. However if you need to go off on a tangent with the LLVM code base you are free to do so.
    Just as they don't mind missing on the proprietary bits they cannot include, they'll probably don't mind either on the GPL ones that cannot be incorporated either.
    The problem isn't with the GPL licensed code out there, much of which is very good software, but the rather with the horrors of the GPL license. GPL is falling out of favor because the code is to restricted.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    319

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post
    Which indicates that you don't understand why Apple sponsored this program in the first place. GPL 3 is a terrible license and as such rational corporations, even individuals avoid it like the plaque.
    You got it mostly ok, but you have some spelling errors:
    terrible -> pro freedom
    rational -> evil
    plaque -> plague

    Quote Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post
    As for this garbage about non free compilers who really cares, considering the size of the world you have no idea how GPL based code is used in different places. When working with open source it is far better to use code that is licensed in a way the frees you as the user instead of being out in a legal jail like GPL 3 puts you in.
    A search for jailbrake on the net yields a page full of iOS related results and yet you talk about poor Apple avoiding the bad GPL jail.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •