9 ms·

Reproducing the text because the site is under too much load and Coral Cache can't resolve it: List: openbsd-misc Subject: Re: LLVM license change

Reproducing the text because the site is under too much load and Coral Cache can't resolve it: List: openbsd-misc Subject: Re: LLVM license change From: "Theo de Raadt" <deraadt () openbsd ! org> Date: 2016-09-28 4:27:44 Message-ID: 91077.1475036864 () cvs ! openbsd ! org [Download message RAW] > And that is because corporate "contributor-wannabes" put pressure on the > LLVM foundation. > http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2015-October/091536.html > > It does say "this is an RFC" but that was last year. We are now in this > year: > http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2016-September/104778.html > > What I particularly do not like is the "IANAL but let's do it anyway" > drift emanating from a lot of high profile developers there. Well, I hope they do it. And then -- I hope a year or two later, some author of a component (especially one from Europe where the moral rights of an author still carries substantial weight) submarines the new licence, surfacing to indicate that they never signed off on the additional terms applied to them as a significant author, and will accept no cash to solve the problem. Then they are dead in the water. A cataclysm like CSRG went through. Then a fork of code on the original license can flourish. A fork based upon the last free version -- but let's remember that is the history of another piece of important software... So this problem could be fixed, if enough people care. In this situation, I suspect a few people are being paid a lot of wages to act as agents permitting theft from their co-contributors. They worked with others but now they are ready to steal from them. A list of all contributers (and every single one of them must agree) has not been published, so it is really likely this is a well-financed effort being performed by paralegals. Meanwhile day by day that list of contributors operating under the existing model is growing.. Someone is hoping they can get away with copyright theft. Want to have fun? Submit a major diff, which (seperately) in the submission says you'll never agree. Eventually most large projects find their inner Xfree86, I'm afraid to say.

shadowmint 10y ago
It's hard to have any idea what that means without the preceding context: > > > What does the OpenBSD community think about the LLVM proposal to move > > > to the Apache license? > > > > > > http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2016-September/104778.html > > > > If LLVM would move to the Apache 2 license, we would become unable > > to use versions released after that change, and would be stuck with > > version released before the change, just like we are stuck with > > pre-GPLv3 gcc now. So it would be very bad for us. > > > > See http://www.openbsd.org/policy.html : > > > > Apache > > The original Apache license was similar to the Berkeley license, > > but source code published under version 2 of the Apache license > > is subject to additional restrictions and cannot be included > > into OpenBSD. > > > > In a nutshell, OpenBSD does not consider software released under > > Apache 2 to be free software. At least not free enough for us
- dleslie 10y ago
  Does anyone recall why they rejected the GPL3?
  - DannyBee 10y ago
    It doesn't really meet any of the goals for relicensing. For example, one goal was to not need CLA's. Apache has a built in CLA, GPLv3 does not. Another is that llvm has no desire to require signing keys for represent or source reproduction of private backend, etc. Using gplv3 as a base would have required an even longer list of exceptions, and the end result would be gutting most of gplv3
    - qb45 10y ago
      The question was what's OpenBSD's issue with GPL3, not LLVM's.
      - dleslie 10y ago
        Yes, it was; it seems you were the only person to notice that. :(
        Gracana 10y ago
        From <https://www.openbsd.org/policy.html> https://www.openbsd.org/policy.html>: GNU General Public License, GPL, LGPL, copyleft, etc. The GNU Public License and licenses modeled on it impose the restriction that source code must be distributed or made available for all works that are derivatives of the GNU copyrighted code. While this may superficially look like a noble strategy, it is a condition that is typically unacceptable for commercial use of software. So in practice, it usually ends up hindering free sharing and reuse of code and ideas rather than encouraging it. As a consequence, no additional software bound by the GPL terms will be considered for inclusion into the OpenBSD base system. For historical reasons, the OpenBSD base system still includes the following GPL-licensed components: the GNU compiler collection (GCC) with supporting binutils and libraries, GNU CVS, GNU texinfo, the mkhybrid file system creation tool, and the readline library. Replacement by equivalent, more freely licensed tools is a long-term desideratum. [edit] removed extra spaces to avoid HN's auto-formatter
refulgentis 10y ago
Painting the situation as "corporate contributer-wannabes" and "IANAL but let's do it anyway" is loaded language that seems intended to bring up negative tropes. The first is sneering at the host of potential contributors, because the host is willing to pay the salary of the contributors. The second is not remotely backed up by the facts. They've hired lawyers, and consulted the community. The community's predominant concern was whether the new license (Apache2) would be compatible with GPLv2. In the "We are now in this year" link, it's explicated how they consulted a gaggle of open source lawyers, determined the predominant belief was the new license was compatible with GPLv2. But they didn't stop there – they had a lawyer draft an addendum to really ensure that! Not a good look. Fever swamp paranoia, and wishing ill on a series of people clearly trying to do well and address every concern.
- protomyth 10y ago
  > Painting the situation as "corporate contributer-wannabes" and "IANAL but let's do it anyway" is loaded language that seems intended to bring up negative tropes. Theo de Raadt said neither phrase.
  - karlshea 10y ago
    I think everybody here knows what ">" means.
    - notaplumber 10y ago
      Except for refulgentis, apparently.
      - karlshea 10y ago
        I don't see where refulgentis claims Theo did. Clearly, those are quotes from the person Theo is replying to. Theo seems to agree with that person though, and "wishing ill on a series of people clearly trying to do well" certainly could apply to both parties in the email.
  - 10y ago
Longhanks 10y ago
Highly doubt a fork will 'flourish' so easily. LLVM is largely backed by Apple, the founder himself (Chris Lattner) works there. It won't be abandoned in the near future, however the license changes.

shadowmint 10y ago

It's hard to have any idea what that means without the preceding context: > > > What does the OpenBSD community think about the LLVM proposal to move > > > to the Apache license? > > > > > > http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2016-September/104778.html > > > > If LLVM would move to the Apache 2 license, we would become unable > > to use versions released after that change, and would be stuck with > > version released before the change, just like we are stuck with > > pre-GPLv3 gcc now. So it would be very bad for us. > > > > See http://www.openbsd.org/policy.html : > > > > Apache > > The original Apache license was similar to the Berkeley license, > > but source code published under version 2 of the Apache license > > is subject to additional restrictions and cannot be included > > into OpenBSD. > > > > In a nutshell, OpenBSD does not consider software released under > > Apache 2 to be free software. At least not free enough for us

dleslie 10y ago
Does anyone recall why they rejected the GPL3?
- DannyBee 10y ago
  It doesn't really meet any of the goals for relicensing. For example, one goal was to not need CLA's. Apache has a built in CLA, GPLv3 does not. Another is that llvm has no desire to require signing keys for represent or source reproduction of private backend, etc. Using gplv3 as a base would have required an even longer list of exceptions, and the end result would be gutting most of gplv3
  - qb45 10y ago
    The question was what's OpenBSD's issue with GPL3, not LLVM's.
    - dleslie 10y ago
      Yes, it was; it seems you were the only person to notice that. :(
      - Gracana 10y ago
        From <https://www.openbsd.org/policy.html> https://www.openbsd.org/policy.html>: GNU General Public License, GPL, LGPL, copyleft, etc. The GNU Public License and licenses modeled on it impose the restriction that source code must be distributed or made available for all works that are derivatives of the GNU copyrighted code. While this may superficially look like a noble strategy, it is a condition that is typically unacceptable for commercial use of software. So in practice, it usually ends up hindering free sharing and reuse of code and ideas rather than encouraging it. As a consequence, no additional software bound by the GPL terms will be considered for inclusion into the OpenBSD base system. For historical reasons, the OpenBSD base system still includes the following GPL-licensed components: the GNU compiler collection (GCC) with supporting binutils and libraries, GNU CVS, GNU texinfo, the mkhybrid file system creation tool, and the readline library. Replacement by equivalent, more freely licensed tools is a long-term desideratum. [edit] removed extra spaces to avoid HN's auto-formatter

refulgentis 10y ago

Painting the situation as "corporate contributer-wannabes" and "IANAL but let's do it anyway" is loaded language that seems intended to bring up negative tropes. The first is sneering at the host of potential contributors, because the host is willing to pay the salary of the contributors. The second is not remotely backed up by the facts. They've hired lawyers, and consulted the community. The community's predominant concern was whether the new license (Apache2) would be compatible with GPLv2. In the "We are now in this year" link, it's explicated how they consulted a gaggle of open source lawyers, determined the predominant belief was the new license was compatible with GPLv2. But they didn't stop there – they had a lawyer draft an addendum to really ensure that! Not a good look. Fever swamp paranoia, and wishing ill on a series of people clearly trying to do well and address every concern.

protomyth 10y ago
> Painting the situation as "corporate contributer-wannabes" and "IANAL but let's do it anyway" is loaded language that seems intended to bring up negative tropes. Theo de Raadt said neither phrase.
- karlshea 10y ago
  I think everybody here knows what ">" means.
  - notaplumber 10y ago
    Except for refulgentis, apparently.
    - karlshea 10y ago
      I don't see where refulgentis claims Theo did. Clearly, those are quotes from the person Theo is replying to. Theo seems to agree with that person though, and "wishing ill on a series of people clearly trying to do well" certainly could apply to both parties in the email.
- 10y ago

Longhanks 10y ago

Highly doubt a fork will 'flourish' so easily. LLVM is largely backed by Apple, the founder himself (Chris Lattner) works there. It won't be abandoned in the near future, however the license changes.