7 ms·

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 >

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
        qb45 10y ago
        Have read it too, but the question was what's wrong with GPL3 that isn't wrong with GPL2. Am I again the only one to notice? :) I'll give you folks a hint: the specific quote dleslie responded to says that OpenBSD stuck with GPL2 version of GCC to avoid GPL3. But, of course, this place being HN, people have attention span of an infant and forget the context by the time they catch something they'd like to respond to :p
        eitland 10y ago
        I guess because to people who find GPL2 too strict one of the last things they want is a newer, even stricter version of the same?
- coldtea 10y ago
  Because no company would touch the GPL3 with a 100-ft pole.
  - facetube 10y ago
    Tautology is fun!
    - coldtea 10y ago
      It might be, but this isn't one. There could have been 100 other reasons for not wanting a specific license on their project besides corporate dislike for it.
  - Iv 10y ago
    No company that intends to use software patents as an offensive weapon, indeed.
    - johncolanduoni 10y ago
      The Apache 2.0 provides a patent grant, and the whole reason they were looking for a new license was to add a patent grant. So if Apple wants to sue anyone who uses LLVM for patent infringement, why are they spending so much money on lawyers to figure out how to switch to a license with a patent grant?
      - cyphar 10y ago
        The Apache 2.0 provides an uneven patent grant. Specifically, it's directed from users to the developers. The GPLv3 makes the patent grants much more copyleft in style to ensure that users cannot be attacked by patents from developers as well.
        johncolanduoni 10y ago
        Apache 2.0: > each Contributor hereby grants to You a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable (except as stated in this section) patent license to make, have made, use, offer to sell, sell, import, and otherwise transfer the Work, where such license applies only to those patent claims licensable by such Contributor that are necessarily infringed by their Contribution(s) alone or by combination of their Contribution(s) with the Work to which such Contribution(s) was submitted. GPLv3: > Each contributor grants you a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free patent license under the contributor's essential patent claims, to make, use, sell, offer for sale, import and otherwise run, modify and propagate the contents of its contributor version. The two licenses are definitely not identical on patents, but both are pretty clear that they provide protection to users from developers, insofar as the original code and any modifications downstream were licensed under the Apache 2.0 license. You're right that there's no copyleft, but that doesn't reverse the direction of the patent grant.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]

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
      - qb45 10y ago
        Have read it too, but the question was what's wrong with GPL3 that isn't wrong with GPL2. Am I again the only one to notice? :) I'll give you folks a hint: the specific quote dleslie responded to says that OpenBSD stuck with GPL2 version of GCC to avoid GPL3. But, of course, this place being HN, people have attention span of an infant and forget the context by the time they catch something they'd like to respond to :p
        eitland 10y ago
        I guess because to people who find GPL2 too strict one of the last things they want is a newer, even stricter version of the same?
coldtea 10y ago
Because no company would touch the GPL3 with a 100-ft pole.
- facetube 10y ago
  Tautology is fun!
  - coldtea 10y ago
    It might be, but this isn't one. There could have been 100 other reasons for not wanting a specific license on their project besides corporate dislike for it.
- Iv 10y ago
  No company that intends to use software patents as an offensive weapon, indeed.
  - johncolanduoni 10y ago
    The Apache 2.0 provides a patent grant, and the whole reason they were looking for a new license was to add a patent grant. So if Apple wants to sue anyone who uses LLVM for patent infringement, why are they spending so much money on lawyers to figure out how to switch to a license with a patent grant?
    - cyphar 10y ago
      The Apache 2.0 provides an uneven patent grant. Specifically, it's directed from users to the developers. The GPLv3 makes the patent grants much more copyleft in style to ensure that users cannot be attacked by patents from developers as well.
      - johncolanduoni 10y ago
        Apache 2.0: > each Contributor hereby grants to You a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable (except as stated in this section) patent license to make, have made, use, offer to sell, sell, import, and otherwise transfer the Work, where such license applies only to those patent claims licensable by such Contributor that are necessarily infringed by their Contribution(s) alone or by combination of their Contribution(s) with the Work to which such Contribution(s) was submitted. GPLv3: > Each contributor grants you a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free patent license under the contributor's essential patent claims, to make, use, sell, offer for sale, import and otherwise run, modify and propagate the contents of its contributor version. The two licenses are definitely not identical on patents, but both are pretty clear that they provide protection to users from developers, insofar as the original code and any modifications downstream were licensed under the Apache 2.0 license. You're right that there's no copyleft, but that doesn't reverse the direction of the patent grant.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]