4 ms·

In the absence any any mention of licensing, I presume this is Apache-2… I don’t know if I’ve ever seen such a core piece of infra licensed that way (am used to

by bch 5y ago

In the absence any any mention of licensing, I presume this is Apache-2… I don’t know if I’ve ever seen such a core piece of infra licensed that way (am used to BSD or MIT) - others might know better than I: is this a sane way forward?

jcranmer 5y ago
The license is here: <https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/main/libc/LICENSE.TXT https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/main/libc/LICENSE....>. It's Apache v2 with a compiler exception--i.e., the compiler linking bits of itself into you doesn't count for license purposes.
Someone 5y ago
It’s Apache licensed with LLVM exceptions (https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/main/libc/LICENSE.TXT https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/main/libc/LICENSE....) LibC++ is licensed that way, too (https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/main/libcxx/LICENSE.TXT https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/main/libcxx/LICENS...)
mananaysiempre 5y ago
The OpenBSD people in general and De Raadt specifically are probably the best-known objectors to Apache-2[1–4], among other things because they hold that Apache-2 is too broad to be a copyright license and thus has to be interpreted as a contract instead. I don’t know if they’re right, but their arguments did shift my opinion in their direction. Corporate lawyers seem to love it, though, because of the mutually-assured-patent-destruction clause. [1]: http://www.openbsd.org/policy.html http://www.openbsd.org/policy.html (see corresponding section) [2]: https://marc.info/?i=91077.1475036864%20()%20cvs%20!%20openbsd%20!%20org https://marc.info/?i=91077.1475036864%20()%20cvs%20!%20openb... (De Raadt rants on openbsd-misc, discussed on HN at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=126178810 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=126178810) [3]: https://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2017-April/112300.html https://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2017-April/112300.... (Kettenis objects on behalf of OpenBSD on llvm-dev) [4]: https://www.cambus.net/the-state-of-toolchains-in-openbsd/ https://www.cambus.net/the-state-of-toolchains-in-openbsd/ (OpenBSD gives up on staying with old LLVM)
- jcranmer 5y ago
  > among other things because they hold that Apache-2 is too broad to be a copyright license and thus has to be interpreted as a contract instead. Which is inane because a copyright license is a contract anyways. My understanding is that the number of lawyers who agree with the OpenBSD position is approximately 0, even in jurisdictions that don't have Anglophone interpretations of contracts and copyright--I haven't seen any lawyer come it in favor of the OpenBSD interpretation here. (Note too that criticism of the GPL doesn't include this--and if Apache is too complicated to be a copyright license, the GPL certainly is.) There is also a certain irony in arguing that clarifying the terms of a license great yields less clarity than not doing so.

by bch 5y ago

jcranmer 5y ago

The license is here: <https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/main/libc/LICENSE.TXT https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/main/libc/LICENSE....>. It's Apache v2 with a compiler exception--i.e., the compiler linking bits of itself into you doesn't count for license purposes.

Someone 5y ago

It’s Apache licensed with LLVM exceptions (https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/main/libc/LICENSE.TXT https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/main/libc/LICENSE....) LibC++ is licensed that way, too (https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/main/libcxx/LICENSE.TXT https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/main/libcxx/LICENS...)

mananaysiempre 5y ago

The OpenBSD people in general and De Raadt specifically are probably the best-known objectors to Apache-2[1–4], among other things because they hold that Apache-2 is too broad to be a copyright license and thus has to be interpreted as a contract instead. I don’t know if they’re right, but their arguments did shift my opinion in their direction. Corporate lawyers seem to love it, though, because of the mutually-assured-patent-destruction clause. [1]: http://www.openbsd.org/policy.html http://www.openbsd.org/policy.html (see corresponding section) [2]: https://marc.info/?i=91077.1475036864%20()%20cvs%20!%20openbsd%20!%20org https://marc.info/?i=91077.1475036864%20()%20cvs%20!%20openb... (De Raadt rants on openbsd-misc, discussed on HN at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=126178810 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=126178810) [3]: https://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2017-April/112300.html https://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2017-April/112300.... (Kettenis objects on behalf of OpenBSD on llvm-dev) [4]: https://www.cambus.net/the-state-of-toolchains-in-openbsd/ https://www.cambus.net/the-state-of-toolchains-in-openbsd/ (OpenBSD gives up on staying with old LLVM)

jcranmer 5y ago
> among other things because they hold that Apache-2 is too broad to be a copyright license and thus has to be interpreted as a contract instead. Which is inane because a copyright license is a contract anyways. My understanding is that the number of lawyers who agree with the OpenBSD position is approximately 0, even in jurisdictions that don't have Anglophone interpretations of contracts and copyright--I haven't seen any lawyer come it in favor of the OpenBSD interpretation here. (Note too that criticism of the GPL doesn't include this--and if Apache is too complicated to be a copyright license, the GPL certainly is.) There is also a certain irony in arguing that clarifying the terms of a license great yields less clarity than not doing so.