I'm not sure why anyone thinks there will not be a real license change process. There will. This is just the stage of settling the question of what the license

I'm not sure why anyone thinks there will not be a real license change process. There will. This is just the stage of settling the question of what the license should be. Everyone is quite aware of the work it will take to actually change the license (I've managed the process for a number of large projects before) and random commentary from Theo that it will just be unilaterally changed is simply wrong. Chris's email even says this " Once we reach an agreement on the path to take, we can start talking about logistics of how to get there." As for the corporate wannabes comment, the truth is that folks have gone out of their way to talk to both users and contributors, at the developer conference and elsewhere (and in fact, we've spent a year trying to come up with licensing solutions to ensure we don't cause problems for various one off users, whereas most projects who have relicensed usually just told them tough luck). Past that, I'll be honest:I'm pretty uninterested in what a bunch of random people on an unrelated mailing list, who don't participate in the community at all, want to think. Especially when they have pretty much no data and have never bothered to simply ask questions on the llvm mailing list in the thread (or at the developer conference, or...), like others did. If they have real concerns, they are welcome to raise them in any of the normal ways.