3 ms·

Sorry, but I have trouble understanding such legalese. Can someone please translate this into more common language? Thanks! I do not want to guess what this cou

• jcranmer 8y ago
  The first bit says effectively "this doesn't apply to compiler libraries [1] we link into your code". The second bit effectively says "you can use this with GPLv2 code" (normal Apache v2 only is compatible with GPLv3). [1] e.g., code to implement a 64-bit division operation on platforms that don't have an instruction for that.
  • bunderbunder 8y ago
    It looks like the first bit might also imply that you can use LLVM as the basis for a JIT compiler without having to license your code as Apache 2.0 or include the attribution notices. Maybe?
    • justincormack 8y ago
      No, that would not be "as a result of compiling", but you can do that anyway (with attribution and patent though), as incorporating Apache code into other code is fine in general.
    • jcranmer 8y ago
      If your program is calling LLVM APIs directly, the exception wouldn't kick in. So any JIT project using LLVM would have to comply with Apache 2.0.
      • int_19h 8y ago
        Complying with AL in that case would simply amount to LLVM itself still being under AL. The code that calls it wouldn't have to be.