On Tue, 27 Sep 2016 20:29:56 -0500 Amit Kulkarni <amitk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 8:06 PM, Chris Cappuccio <ch...@nmedia.net> > wrote: > > > Ingo Schwarze [schwa...@usta.de] wrote: > > > Hi Benjamin, > > > > > > kbenjamin Coplon wrote on Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 01:23:43PM -0400: > > > > > > > What does the OpenBSD community think about the LLVM proposal > > > > to move to the Apache license? > > > > > > > > http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2016-September/104778.html > > > > > > If LLVM would move to the Apache 2 license, we would become unable > > > to use versions released after that change, and would be stuck > > > with version released before the change, just like we are stuck > > > with pre-GPLv3 gcc now. So it would be very bad for us. > > > > > > See http://www.openbsd.org/policy.html : > > > > > > Apache > > > The original Apache license was similar to the Berkeley > > > license, but source code published under version 2 of the Apache > > > license is subject to additional restrictions and cannot be > > > included into OpenBSD. > > > > > > In a nutshell, OpenBSD does not consider software released under > > > Apache 2 to be free software. At least not free enough for us. > > > > > > > One major problem with the Apache 2.0 license is the fact that it > > is not merely a software license, but extends out into contract law. > > This has been a concern with many licenses, not just Apache. > > > > If you use Apache 2.0 license code, you lose rights that you > > otherwise retain under the MIT or BSD license. > > > > Just review sections 3 and 4. The patent clause in section 3 is an > > issue. > > > > https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.txt > > > > Chris > > > > > Ironically, LLVM wants protection against patents. > And that is because corporate "contributor-wannabes" put pressure on the LLVM foundation. http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2015-October/091536.html It does say "this is an RFC" but that was last year. We are now in this year: http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2016-September/104778.html What I particularly do not like is the "IANAL but let's do it anyway" drift emanating from a lot of high profile developers there.
