3 ms·

It wouldn't cover anything from OpenBSD, if as excerpted by you, it only covers exceptions related to GPLv2 as I don't believe OpenBSD considers GPLv2 to be acc

It wouldn't cover anything from OpenBSD, if as excerpted by you, it only covers exceptions related to GPLv2 as I don't believe OpenBSD considers GPLv2 to be acceptable either.

brynet 7y ago
> I don't believe OpenBSD considers GPLv2 to be acceptable either. The GPLv3 is not acceptable in base at all, GPLv2 is unacceptable for new code, but we still have a few examples in base, very few.
- simcop2387 7y ago
  Ah that'd probably be why I was thinking it was any code, small difference that's easy to forget about.
riscy 7y ago
My reading of the LLVM Exceptions statement is that if a judge understands the the Apache 2.0 patent provision section (and others) to not be the same as GPLv2, then the section is waived. The preamble of the GPLv2 summarizes its stance on patents in lay terms that seem to be compatible with what OpenBSD wants: "We wish to avoid the danger that redistributors of a free program will individually obtain patent licenses, in effect making the program proprietary. To prevent this, we have made it clear that any patent must be licensed for everyone's free use or not licensed at all." Source: https://opensource.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.php https://opensource.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.php (I'm not a lawyer)
- chc 7y ago
  The exemption you quoted very specifically says it applies "if you combine or link compiled forms of this Software with software that is licensed under the GPLv2 ("Combined Software") and if a court of competent jurisdiction determines that the patent provision […] conflicts with the conditions of the GPLv2" (emphasis mine). I don't know how you could read that as applying to situations where nothing is licensed under the GPLv2. In other words, it sounds like this would address OpenBSD's concerns if OpenBSD were GPL-licensed — but it isn't.

3 ms·

It wouldn't cover anything from OpenBSD, if as excerpted by you, it only covers exceptions related to GPLv2 as I don't believe OpenBSD considers GPLv2 to be acc

by simcop2387 7y ago

It wouldn't cover anything from OpenBSD, if as excerpted by you, it only covers exceptions related to GPLv2 as I don't believe OpenBSD considers GPLv2 to be acceptable either.

brynet 7y ago
> I don't believe OpenBSD considers GPLv2 to be acceptable either. The GPLv3 is not acceptable in base at all, GPLv2 is unacceptable for new code, but we still have a few examples in base, very few.
- simcop2387 7y ago
  Ah that'd probably be why I was thinking it was any code, small difference that's easy to forget about.
riscy 7y ago
My reading of the LLVM Exceptions statement is that if a judge understands the the Apache 2.0 patent provision section (and others) to not be the same as GPLv2, then the section is waived. The preamble of the GPLv2 summarizes its stance on patents in lay terms that seem to be compatible with what OpenBSD wants: "We wish to avoid the danger that redistributors of a free program will individually obtain patent licenses, in effect making the program proprietary. To prevent this, we have made it clear that any patent must be licensed for everyone's free use or not licensed at all." Source: https://opensource.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.php https://opensource.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.php (I'm not a lawyer)
- chc 7y ago
  The exemption you quoted very specifically says it applies "if you combine or link compiled forms of this Software with software that is licensed under the GPLv2 ("Combined Software") and if a court of competent jurisdiction determines that the patent provision […] conflicts with the conditions of the GPLv2" (emphasis mine). I don't know how you could read that as applying to situations where nothing is licensed under the GPLv2. In other words, it sounds like this would address OpenBSD's concerns if OpenBSD were GPL-licensed — but it isn't.