On Fri, 2005-12-16 at 11:27 -0800, Chris Lattner wrote: > On Dec 16, 2005, at 11:15 AM, Mark K. Smith wrote: > > Additionally to the obstacles to adopt LLVM mentioned by Diego, I > > named usage of C++ (although it has advantages too) and patents. LLVM > > should be checked for usage of compiler patents. Gcc people avoided > > many patents especially from Microsoft. We can not be sure right now > > about LLVM. > > Hi, > > For what it's worth, LLVM doesn't depend on any technology patented > by Microsoft that I'm aware of. This seems to be an item of common > confusion, so I'll clear it up here. > > The confusion is basically centered around the distinction between my > PhD research work and LLVM itself. > The thesis work I did at UIUC does relate closely to Steensgaard's > pointer analysis work, which is patented by Microsoft. However, this > thesis work is not currently used by LLVM, and certainly won't be > incorporated directly into GCC (for obvious patent reasons), so this > isn't an issue with LLVM adoption by GCC.
The sad fact is it probably doesn't matter if it's actually run by default or not. It is built into the binary, exists in the source tree, and *can be run* by simply passing a command line option to opt. This invariably counts as a "making of the patented invention", and is considered infringement, even if it's not run by default. If you made it not built into the binary, you would be on more solid legal ground (but even then they'd still sue you anyway :P). --Dan
