Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

LLVM Spun Off Into Its Own Independent, Non-Profit

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

  • 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
    Fantastic!

    Coolest news I've heard all year.

    Comment


    • #3
      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.

      Comment


      • #4
        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.

        Comment


        • #5
          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.

          Comment


          • #6
            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.

            Comment


            • #7
              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.

              Comment


              • #8
                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.

                Comment


                • #9
                  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.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    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

                    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.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X