LLVM Developers Discuss Relicensing Code To Apache License

[phoronix]

Phoronix: LLVM Developers Discuss Relicensing Code To Apache License

Over the past week LLVM developers have been discussing potentially relicensing their code-base under the Apache 2.0 license...

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...ers-Apache-2.0

[wodencafe]

It all just sounds like a FUD bologna campaign to relicense LLVM to something more corporate-friendly, prompted by corporate interests, under the guise of "Let muh upstream patches go!"

Please.

Is someone being prevented from contributing to LLVM in their own time?

This is just an attempt to push LLVM deeper into big pockets, and test the waters for further re-licensing, evolving into proprietary software on the back of the Open Source community.

[bug77]

It all just sounds like a FUD bologna campaign to relicense LLVM to something more corporate-friendly, prompted by corporate interests, under the guise of "Let muh upstream patches go!"

Please.

Is someone being prevented from contributing to LLVM in their own time?

This is just an attempt to push LLVM deeper into big pockets, and test the waters for further re-licensing, evolving into proprietary software on the back of the Open Source community.

Like it or not, most open source development is actually paid for by various companies.
But look at the bright side: the mere fact of considering a license switch means some lawyers will earn some cash.

[Spazturtle]

Apple doesn't seam to have an issue with the current licence and they have full time developers working on it and include it with OS X. Don't see why other companies would have an issue with the current licence.

[kpedersen]

So this must be due to recent companies expressing interest in LLVM.
Perhaps Unity or Microsoft?

Personally I rekon it is Unity whining. They stuck with the old deprecated Mono version for years (still are?) just so not to have to integrate the open-source GPL3 version. They are now using clang for their Emscripten / HTML5 / WebGL export.

[tegs]

Its a shame that development of FLOSS libraries these days is done by corporations so they can turn around and make it non-free and not contribute back. If you want to develop or use a library or program that sticks hard to free software ideals, it is usually low quality and run by a one man team that is only developed in his/her free time and has the risk of being abandoned. While a free software compatible license helps in continuing work of an abandoned project, is it really that common if the software isn't that popular?

[Luke_Wolf]

Ugh you people...

The point of all of this is that LLVM wants to bring greater clarity and protection to it's patent situation. It's not really any more corporate friendly or not one way or another.

[Duve]

So this must be due to recent companies expressing interest in LLVM.
Perhaps Unity or Microsoft?

Honestly, I would suspect Google.... Apache 2.0 tends to be a favorite of theses when they "Pitch something over the wall" (many parts to Android are covered under the license) and aside from that, Blink relies on LLVM quite a bit from what I remember (but then so did Webkit, so it makes some sense).

I honestly doubt that Unity would have much of a say in a matter like this, as large as they are... And Microsoft is iffy theses days to what they would do if they were to open source anything (They have the MS licenses, clearly seem to like the MIT license with C#/.NET, have contributed to GPL code on there own in the past [Linux Hyper-V Drivers], etc.)

Apple doesn't seam to have an issue with the current licence and they have full time developers working on it and include it with OS X. Don't see why other companies would have an issue with the current licence.

Which is likely a part of the problem, LLVM is more than just Apple. They might be content where LLVM is currently at, but Apple can't speak for other companies.... especially those with equally as large pockets.

[carewolf]

Honestly, I would suspect Google.... Apache 2.0 tends to be a favorite of theses when they "Pitch something over the wall" (many parts to Android are covered under the license) and aside from that, Blink relies on LLVM quite a bit from what I remember (but then so did Webkit, so it makes some sense).
.

Blink doesn't rely on llvm, but JavaScriptCore from WebKit has an LLVM based JIT-backend called FTL. Google does use clang to compile Chrome on many platforms and ships a copy of they bootstrap before building their own build system, and before they build Chrome using their own compiler and build system (using their own copy of whatever else they need too of course).

[SystemCrasher]

What a bunch of corporate footpads. It haven't even started to work properly, but swarm of corporate sharks has already arrived. That's where "permissive" licensing brings one. So it seems it going to be good breakfast for corporate sharks. I think GPL FTW: it keeps most evil and greedy sharks away. Avoiding crap like this alltogether.