3 ms·
It does not use any LLVM libraries and has no feature specific to LLVM, so I think it simply doesn't have a reason to be a subproject of it (or some other large
by rui314 5y ago
It does not use any LLVM libraries and has no feature specific to LLVM, so I think it simply doesn't have a reason to be a subproject of it (or some other large umbrella project).
- wyldfire 5y agoThat doesn't stop other subprojects currently in the monorepo. Rui, regarding -- "a sponsor who wants to purchase the copyright of this work and relicense it under a more liberal license such as the MIT license." Would you accept sponsorship for someone who wants to relicense under LLVM(apache)? And do you have a ballpark asking price?
- DenseComet 5y agoIf you take a look at the CONTRIBUTING.md, Mold has taken an approach that is pretty novel to me. Instead of requiring a CLA to allow for relicensing, all patches are required to be released as dual-license AGPLv3 and MIT. I personally love this approach, but it could make it difficult to relicense to anything but MIT.
- rui314 5y agoMIT is a very permissive and compatible with lots of other open-source licenses. For example, you can sublicense MIT-licensed code under GPL. Not sure if MIT is compatible with the LLVM license, though.
- rui314 5y agoI don't want to write an asking price here, and honestly I don't know how to valuate an open-source project. But I could have been working for Google as a staff engineer and enjoy a decent salary instead of doing this project, so, well...
- wyldfire 5y agoHmm, I thought you were at Google. Did you leave? Regardless of whether you're at Google I think you deserve fair compensation. But IMO the value of mold isn't limited by your opportunity cost of a salary. It's state of the art linker and someone like Apple/FB/etc can and should be willing to compensate you.
- rui314 5y agoI left Google last year. And you are right; mold (or anything that I create) should not be valued at my opportunity cost but instead at its intrinsic value.