LLVM Clang 14 Lands An "Amazing" Performance Optimization

[coder]

Sure as a one off you can be right, but as I said before what I am saying has been consistent over numerous companies in the career I have worked at, and these are copyright/IP lawyers.

I know. I just couldn't resist sharing that anecdote. I was utterly dumbfounded, when I heard what he'd decided.

[oiaohm]

I am sorry but unless you are a lawyer your opinion is worth the amount of thought you made to write this post

The Qt license setup was a rare case that you got a legal presentation from their legal team with the differences between commercial and GPL/LGPL licensed products. Basically I have had lawyer that don't match up to your experiences.

1. How much lawyers time you want to waste and how many complications are created
2. How much the decision opens you up to legal and hence monetary risk. The thing that most companies want to avoid at all costs is going into a lengthy legal battle.

RCU, Qt and many more cases. Parties like IBM with RCU and the different companies that have owned Qt and many others they want to sell commercial license to those that don't want to share the source code and save in development labor cost due to sharing the source code.

You have missed a monetary risk. Apache does not leave you in a location to sell a license extra license. So there is a monetary risk choosing those licenses because they don't give you a stick to that could encourage a party to pay your for a different license on the same source code(like GPL does) or for a patent(like MIT does)..

People forgot things like Fluendo codecs yes they were licensed under MIT license yet you were expected to pay a patent license to use them. Then the Qt and RCU cases where the companies behind them using GPL and LGPL are expecting to be able to sell you a license to use the same stuff without having to release the source code public.


What I wrote mdedetrich "Most of the choice comes down to how company is planning on profit." is true.

1) Is true most of the time because wasting lots of legal time is not a profit making move in most cases. Planning to make a profit you will limit legal costs right.
2) Legal risk is considered. This does not always stop companies getting into lengthy legal battles like google vs oracle over java. But this is again planing not to make a lose. why did orcale push this case.
3) Income stream. Now income might be money might be free developer time. Oracle attacking google is explained by number 3. Google undermined oracle income stream of java.

Profitable business for majority of what they do will have a profit model. Is sales of final products, is this selling support. is this selling patents, is this selling special licenses to get around a particular licenses restrictions... and many more.

mdedetrich I guess most of the cases you have been dealing with is selling complete devices to users and that is your profit/income stream.

The parties choosing GPL/LGPL mostly own to two camps
1) they are selling licenses to get around GPL/LGPL to parties that don't want to follow GPL/LGPL. (this has included oracle and ibm)
2) they are wanting more developers working on the code and release their changes back than they want to spend money on.(cost reduction to them long term by forcing license compliance)

GPL ecosystem is a particular subsets and those subsets are doing it for different profit making plans.

MIT and Apache groups also have there own subset of companies. Like not all MIT licensing companies are going in with the plan we will be demanding patent license from everyone who uses their MIT licensed code but there is a subset of those who license code under MIT license that there plan is truly demand patent license from anyone who uses it.

mdedetrich each subset is made up of "numerous companies" some companies are different subsets depending on what department you are in as well.

Think about this mdedetrich you have a particular skill set. You are likely to be employed by companies of the same subset of profit making plans. Being in the same subset of profit making plans the legal teams are going to be responding all the same way because that is correct for the profit making plan of the business and the plans were the same. Observer bias problem.

Please note mdedetrich I am not saying what you have seen is false but there is a Observer bias you have not considered. This observer bias means you should expect in most cases to go though most of your work history seeing a single profit making model. Please note this Observer bias is not unique in acting they call it type casting.

This is nasty bias thing.