> 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.
Well, I hope they do it. And then -- I hope a year or two later, some author of a component (especially one from Europe where the moral rights of an author still carries substantial weight) submarines the new licence, surfacing to indicate that they never signed off on the additional terms applied to them as a significant author, and will accept no cash to solve the problem. Then they are dead in the water. A cataclysm like CSRG went through. Then a fork of code on the original license can flourish. A fork based upon the last free version -- but let's remember that is the history of another piece of important software... So this problem could be fixed, if enough people care. In this situation, I suspect a few people are being paid a lot of wages to act as agents permitting theft from their co-contributors. They worked with others but now they are ready to steal from them. A list of all contributers (and every single one of them must agree) has not been published, so it is really likely this is a well-financed effort being performed by paralegals. Meanwhile day by day that list of contributors operating under the existing model is growing.. Someone is hoping they can get away with copyright theft. Want to have fun? Submit a major diff, which (seperately) in the submission says you'll never agree. Eventually most large projects find their inner Xfree86, I'm afraid to say.
