> Llvm is a different licence not illegal to examine. As others are pointing out, rigorous application of copyright precedent argues in the other direction. B

> Llvm is a different licence not illegal to examine. As others are pointing out, rigorous application of copyright precedent argues in the other direction. But I agree that it's really sad to see this is where we are in the community. The Apache license isn't some crazy monstrosity, it's literally free software per the FSF! It's "additional requirements" that the GPLv2 bumps into are things like the patent grant that we all agree are good things. And it's not incompatible with GPLv3! Yet no one can work together. GPLv2 projects won't relicense to Apache or GPLv3, GPLv3 proponents won't link to GPLv2, corporate sponsors have refused to use GPLv3 at all. Everyone looks at these historical warts and incompatibilities as fortress walls around their own worlds and has forgotten that the only reason these licenses exist in the first place is that we all agree (or used to) that software is better when we can all share it. But apparently it's not, because Everybody Else wants to share it in the Wrong Way. I feel very old sometimes.