lattner added a comment. Hi all, I'm commenting on this based on my personal opinion, I don't speak for the LLVM board or anyone else. I am also not a lawyer :)
This isn’t a clear cut case (as is typical!). LLVM's approach on patents protection revolves primarily around the terms in the Apache 2 license, which is based on the owner of patents contributing code. Beyond that, we can’t/don't proactively do all the research of potential patent infringement of contributed code. That said, we have historically NOT taken code that is known to infringe on high risk patents. The one that comes to mind is the (now expired) patents on Steensgaard’s unification-based pointer analysis work. We rejected taking related work until those patents expire. In this case, AUTOSAR/Parasoft looks like a little company, their spec is clearly saying they have IP rights associated with it, and the risks seem very high to me. I think we should ask for a legal statement signed by a director of the company (not an informal email) saying we can use this in LLVM. The risk is just otherwise too high for the vast community of people who use LLVM. -Chris CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D112730/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D112730 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
