5 ms·

> GCC is licensed under the GPL license. Clang uses a BSD license ... Looks like this hasn't been updated in a while. As of Clang 9.0 they migrated everything

> GCC is licensed under the GPL license. Clang uses a BSD license ... Looks like this hasn't been updated in a while. As of Clang 9.0 they migrated everything to the Apache 2.0 license, which is not nearly as permissive as BSD. Apache 2.0 mixes US Contract law with Copyright law, and that is considered wholly "not permissive enough" by many, most notably OpenBSD which is stuck on Clang 8.0.1. They also migrated the libc++/libc++abi C++ standard libraries from MIT to Apache 2.0 as well (which was a real dick move), but they don't care.

Joky 7y ago
Minor precision: it is Apache 2.0 with LLVM exceptions, the exceptions are intended to address libc++ and other runtime use-cases I believe.
chipperyman573 7y ago
Why were the license changes made?
- pnako 7y ago
  https://llvm.org/foundation/relicensing/ https://llvm.org/foundation/relicensing/ Addressing the patents question seems to be the main reason.
  - notaplumber 7y ago
    I wish more people would have seen through this, but alas.. this is the real reason. Corporate pressure, agenda, not the best interest of the open source community. http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2015-October/091536.html http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2015-October/091536... "1) Some contributors are actively blocked from contributing code to LLVM." > These contributors have been holding back patches for quite some time that they’d like to upstream. Corporate contributors (in particular) often have patents on many different things, and while it is reasonable for them to grant access to patents related to LLVM, the wording in the Developer Policy can be interpreted to imply that unrelated parts of their IP could accidentally be granted to LLVM (through “scope creep”). [..] > This is a complicated topic that deals with legal issues and our primary goal is to unblock contributions from specific corporate contributors." Legally dubious relicensing was not only unnecessary, it is now preventing 9.0> use and future contributions, OpenBSD, which has a long history of opposing Apache 2.0. And using LLVM/Clang as the default compiler for the kernel/userland and a ports tree with 10,000 software packages. https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=147503691302850&w=2 https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=147503691302850&w=2 http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2017-April/112300.html http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2017-April/112300.h...
    - caniszczyk 7y ago
      How is a reverse patent retaliation clause in the Apache v2.0 license not in the best interest of the LLVM community? It provides more patent protection for LLVM
    - trasz 7y ago
      And how exactly is the Apache license preventing OpenBSD from anything?
      - cwyers 7y ago
        Because OpenBSD has decided they won't accept it. At this point, OpenBSD has decided that two very popular open source licenses (GPLv3 and Apache 2) are unacceptable to them. That has walled them off from a lot of open source software. They seem to think that it's incumbent on everyone else to adopt licenses they like. They are going to continue to be disappointed.
mhd 7y ago
Interesting, I didn't know that And that after the BSDs were quite happy that a viable non-GPL compiler arrived on the market. Wasn't their final switchover just in 2017?
- trasz 7y ago
  BSDs in general are quite happy, since Apache is pretty much just BSD with patents thing sorted out. The only unhappy ones are OpenBSD folks.
eeZah7Ux 7y ago
> Apache 2.0 mixes US Contract law with Copyright law, and that is considered wholly "not permissive enough" by many And also too permissive by many other. It does not protect from tivoization, freeloading and yet it's not compatible with GPLv2.
- eeZah7Ux 7y ago
  The silent downvotes are telling.

Joky 7y ago

Minor precision: it is Apache 2.0 with LLVM exceptions, the exceptions are intended to address libc++ and other runtime use-cases I believe.

chipperyman573 7y ago

Why were the license changes made?

pnako 7y ago
https://llvm.org/foundation/relicensing/ https://llvm.org/foundation/relicensing/ Addressing the patents question seems to be the main reason.
- notaplumber 7y ago
  I wish more people would have seen through this, but alas.. this is the real reason. Corporate pressure, agenda, not the best interest of the open source community. http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2015-October/091536.html http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2015-October/091536... "1) Some contributors are actively blocked from contributing code to LLVM." > These contributors have been holding back patches for quite some time that they’d like to upstream. Corporate contributors (in particular) often have patents on many different things, and while it is reasonable for them to grant access to patents related to LLVM, the wording in the Developer Policy can be interpreted to imply that unrelated parts of their IP could accidentally be granted to LLVM (through “scope creep”). [..] > This is a complicated topic that deals with legal issues and our primary goal is to unblock contributions from specific corporate contributors." Legally dubious relicensing was not only unnecessary, it is now preventing 9.0> use and future contributions, OpenBSD, which has a long history of opposing Apache 2.0. And using LLVM/Clang as the default compiler for the kernel/userland and a ports tree with 10,000 software packages. https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=147503691302850&w=2 https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=147503691302850&w=2 http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2017-April/112300.html http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2017-April/112300.h...
  - caniszczyk 7y ago
    How is a reverse patent retaliation clause in the Apache v2.0 license not in the best interest of the LLVM community? It provides more patent protection for LLVM
  - trasz 7y ago
    And how exactly is the Apache license preventing OpenBSD from anything?
    - cwyers 7y ago
      Because OpenBSD has decided they won't accept it. At this point, OpenBSD has decided that two very popular open source licenses (GPLv3 and Apache 2) are unacceptable to them. That has walled them off from a lot of open source software. They seem to think that it's incumbent on everyone else to adopt licenses they like. They are going to continue to be disappointed.

mhd 7y ago

Interesting, I didn't know that And that after the BSDs were quite happy that a viable non-GPL compiler arrived on the market. Wasn't their final switchover just in 2017?

trasz 7y ago
BSDs in general are quite happy, since Apache is pretty much just BSD with patents thing sorted out. The only unhappy ones are OpenBSD folks.

eeZah7Ux 7y ago

> Apache 2.0 mixes US Contract law with Copyright law, and that is considered wholly "not permissive enough" by many And also too permissive by many other. It does not protect from tivoization, freeloading and yet it's not compatible with GPLv2.

eeZah7Ux 7y ago
The silent downvotes are telling.