LLVM Still Working Towards Apache 2.0 Relicensing

[starshipeleven]

Public domain doesn't exist in some countries...

Sorry, how about DTFYW license? https://www.npmjs.com/package/util-ext
This code is provided as-is without warranty or support, it can be distributed under the DTFYW License (do the fuck you want)

[ssokolow]

Sorry, how about DTFYW license? https://www.npmjs.com/package/util-ext
This code is provided as-is without warranty or support, it can be distributed under the DTFYW License (do the fuck you want)

Same reason. Licenses like Apache are so long because many countries have special protections and rights that are defined as being excluded from "do whatever you want" unless explicitly mentioned because they were created to defend against people getting tricked into signing away things they didn't actually want to.

(The part about express or implied warranties in the all-caps part of the 2-clause BSD license is an example of one of the few cases where the U.S. has something like that. That all-caps block is a highly-concentrated chunk of "When I said everything, I meant everything." and If you don't explicitly do that, someone could theoretically sue you because your DTFYW-licensed code failed to live up to whatever purpose you seemed to be indicating it was suitable to be used for, such as running without devouring their cat. The Apache license does have a bit more boilerplate, but nearly 1/3rd of its bulk is spent defining terms so there's no ambiguity about what you meant in court.)

[wikinevick]

If they object to ASL2, they can always choose to hoist themselves on their own petard and keep using the latest non-ASL2 release of LLVM, just like they previously did by using the latest GPLv2 GCC.

FWIW, there is no such thing as ASL2: it's "Apache License version 2", it is meant for more than just code.

In any case yes, of all the BSDs, OpenBSD happens to be the most license pedantic: the other BSDs are just fine about using somewhat more restricted licenses like CDDL. Ironically the Free Software Foundation, that is also notorious for criticizing code they didn't wrote based on the license, actually endorses the Apache License.

Let them fork LLVM, just like they forked OpenSSL and seem to prefer the older license (with advertisement clause) over the Apache License.

[chithanh]

The exceptions to the Apache 2.0 license is about if LLVM code during the compilation process gets added to your source code in binary form, you don't need to comply with some parts of the license.

So if I make a modified version of LLVM that just appends the whole LLVM code to every compiled binary (in some form of object code that can be easily translated back to source code), then I have effectively worked around these parts of the license?

I think GCC has an exception too, but that this is limited to the runtime library.

if a court finds

If a court finds
If a court decides that the law says
If the law says

Why include the court in that statement? Seems superfluous.

Instead of making this silly exception, they should take Apache License 2.0 as is, or choose a license that fits their use case always.

[uid313]

Public domain doesn't exist in some countries...

The definition of public domain may also differ in different countries.

[uid313]

Anarchy has fewer rules than rule based democracy. Wouldn't it make sense to destroy all western civilizations? They're mostly just restricting peoples' lives.

Good point.

As a developer though, not a lawyer, I like the license to be simple and with as little confusing legalese as possible so that it is clear and easy to understand.
As a user, not a lawyer, I like the license to be as simple and clear as possible so I can understand it.

As a non-lawyer I can skim through the 2-clause BSD license and understand it.
The GPL, MPL, Apache License are huge licenses and I cannot understand them.
There are many words, clauses and things that can be open to interpretation or misunderstood.

A minimalist license that is easy to understand is easier for me to legally adhere to.
A big complex license is harder to understand and therefor more difficult to adhere to and easier to violate even by accident or misunderstanding.

[uid313]

Sorry, how about DTFYW license? https://www.npmjs.com/package/util-ext
This code is provided as-is without warranty or support, it can be distributed under the DTFYW License (do the fuck you want)

Licenses like the BSD license are written by real lawyers and have been tested and tried in court.
Licenses like WTFPL and DTFYW which some random guy on pot wrote have not been tried in court and may not be valid in court.

[aht0]

How this affects the *BSD systems as they use LLVM instead of GCC? AFAIR it was because of GPL 3 that they got stuck at a older version of gcc

Free- ja OpenBSD use LLVM. NetBSD ja DragonFly are by default using GCC. Users can use newer GCC using binary packages on all 4. If LLVM should drop off, it's probably "back to GCC4.2.1" for the former, though I am not sure, Apache license is falling somewhere between BSD and GPL.

[ldo17]

Apache License is big and have many clauses.

The Apache licence at least includes some degree of protection from patent attacks. It’s the one the FSF recommends if you want a non-copyleft, i.e. freeloader-friendly licence.

[ldo17]

Public domain doesn't exist in some countries...

It exists, but you may not be legally allowed to put your own stuff (!) into the public domain. Things would only go into the public domain after the copyright term expires.

Which is why CC0 was invented.