OpenBSD Founder Calling For LLVM To Face A Cataclysm Over Its Re-Licensing

[jabl]

The Apache License is a good license, however it is vastly different and more complicated than the current license.
I think instead of the Apache License, they should go for a more similar and minimalist license such as 2-clause BSD or the ISC license.

2-clause BSD and ISC are certainly simple, but since explicit goals of going through with all this relicensing work was (from Chris Lattner's email to the llvm-dev list):

- protect users of LLVM code by providing explicit patent protection in the license.
- protect contributors to the LLVM project by explicitly scoping their patent contributions with this license.

it seems that 2-clause BSD and ISC are too simple and minimalistic for their taste.

And, since some stuff used in production quality optimizing compilers is actually patented (e.g. Steensgard points-to analysis), I can't really blame them for wanting to be clear and explicit wrt patents in their license.

[Guest]

I think instead of the Apache License, they should go for a more similar and minimalist license such as 2-clause BSD or the ISC license.

If they want to become less relevant and corporate whores BSD license is the way to go.

[uid313]

If they want to become less relevant and corporate whores BSD license is the way to go.

I like the 2-clause BSD license.
Because I hate lawyers, and I don't like big legal documents. I believe in the mantra "less is more", so the 2-clause BSD license appeals to me, because it is very minimalistic and simple, and there is a beauty in that.

I don't really care for corporations though. I just like the license because it is simple and easy to understand, and even normal non-lawyer folk like me can understand it.
I don't want to read a huge document like the Apache License or the GPL license which might have loopholes too and confusing wording that can cause liabilities. Then BSD is nice, because its straight up "Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted." basically "Do whatever you want."

[chithanh]

Theo says lots of smart things, but the intention behind these statements was all too transparent.

The BSDs are happy to have gotten rid of GNU compiler collection and the GPLv3 which they all hate. Theo and OpenBSD don't like the Apache 2.0 license either, so if LLVM continues pursuing the license change what are they going to do?
Of course they hope that someone else will fork the LLVM codebase under the old license and continue to maintain it, because OpenBSD alone surely can't.

I Don't know of any other than apache httpd itself which isn't what I'd call vibrant.

Android.

[Passso]

If they want to become less relevant and corporate whores BSD license is the way to go.

#BsdLicenceSong
Rape me.... rape me my friend...
Rape me.... rape me again...

[Passso]

I like the 2-clause BSD license.
Because I hate lawyers, and I don't like big legal documents. I believe in the mantra "less is more", so the 2-clause BSD license appeals to me, because it is very minimalistic and simple, and there is a beauty in that.

I don't really care for corporations though. I just like the license because it is simple and easy to understand, and even normal non-lawyer folk like me can understand it.
I don't want to read a huge document like the Apache License or the GPL license which might have loopholes too and confusing wording that can cause liabilities. Then BSD is nice, because its straight up "Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted." basically "Do whatever you want."

Yes you love it because it is so simple that it is totally useless.

If less is more just put :
#COPY ME, FUCK ME HARD, SAY I M YOURS, NO PROBLEM!

Atop of your code...

[Passso]

I should have put FSCK instead to avoid this unapproved post...

[bridgman]

If they want to become less relevant and corporate whores BSD license is the way to go.

The current LLVM license is a BSD-style license (NCSA/UIUC), a bit less wordy than the current 3-clause BSD:

https://opensource.org/licenses/UoI-NCSA.php

https://opensource.org/licenses/BSD-3-Clause

Going with a BSD license would actually be a tiny bit *more* restrictive, although just in the disclaimer section.

[Rich Oliver]

#BsdLicenceSong
Rape me.... rape me my friend...
Rape me.... rape me again...

GPL has been an absolute disaster for most developers and its bad for most users. If I want to use a GPL library in my own code and protect my own code and earn a little bit of money I can't, but if multi billion corporations like facebook or Amazon want to deploy and modify code across tens of thousands of servers, they can for free, without having to give anything back. Linux has been great for the big corporations. Microsoft and Apple totally dominate personal desktops and laptops and while Android has the bulk of the phone market its used in a form which helps maintain vast corporate power for Google, Samsung LG,etc.

GPL is not freedom. It dictates exactly the terms under which you must release your software. Its very much Communist style freedom. The Soviet Union was wonderful free as long as you totally agreed with Joseph Stalin on absolutely everything, similarly the GPL3 is a great licence as long as you agree with every word and don't want to add a single clause to it.

I intend to open source some of my software for what its worth, I will release it without restriction. I will resist the temptation to forbid users from mixing it with GPL code. Software that I don't want to share I won't open source. GPL is a pathetic childish attempt to have your cake and eat it. To pretend to give something away but then control its use for eternity or at least till the copy right runs out.

[computerquip]

If they want to become less relevant and corporate whores BSD license is the way to go.

This makes no sense, they're using BSD-like licensing now. They are still very relevant. For what it's worth, they aren't corporate whores.