On 2/9/22 8:53 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
* Serge Guelton:
> the LLVM project has moved to an Apache Software License 2.0 with exception
> license, referenced as
https://releases.llvm.org/10.0.0/LICENSE.TXT
>
> Some more details are available here:
>
>
https://llvm.org/docs/DeveloperPolicy.html#new-llvm-project-license-frame...
>
> Does it make sense to have it listed in
>
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main#Good_Licenses and the
> associated short name be compatible with, say, rpmdiff?
Isn't our position that the relicensing has not happened yet, that the
SPDX identifiers in the sources are incorrect, and that the project
still distributes the sources under the old LLVM license (called “NCSA”
in the Fedora framework)?
Their website still says it's in process - see
https://llvm.org/docs/DeveloperPolicy.html#relicensing
But note in particular, "In the interim, all contributions to the
project will be made under the terms of both the new license and the
legacy license scheme (each of which is described below). "
Thus, it seems like it'd make sense to get the Apache-2.0 WITH
LLVM-exception (yes, the exception is already on the SPDX License List
:) - on the Fedora list (I'd presume the good list).
As a side note, if anyone reading this is a contributor LLVM, might be
good to sort out the license change - the above link does not seem to
specify how to do that, which is odd as I thought I had seen those
instructions in the past.
Jilayne
______________________________
legal mailing list -- legal(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to legal-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/legal@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure