lebedev.ri added a comment. In D36836#2292541 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D36836#2292541>, @aaron.ballman wrote:
> In D36836#2289639 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D36836#2289639>, @lebedev.ri > wrote: > >> Rebased. >> >> There is a number of official open-source LGPL-3 implementations already: >> >> - https://github.com/SonarSource/SonarTS/pull/378 >> - https://github.com/SonarSource/sonar-java/pull/1385 >> - https://github.com/SonarSource/SonarJS/pull/449 >> - https://github.com/SonarSource/sonar-php/pull/173 >> >> There are other open-source LGPL-3 implementations already: >> >> - https://pypi.org/project/cognitive-complexity/ (MIT) >> - https://github.com/rossmacarthur/complexity (APACHE/MIT) >> >> There are other 3rd party implementations: >> >> - https://docs.codeclimate.com/docs/cognitive-complexity >> >> Quite honestly, i do not understand how did the license question arose. > > It arose in a comment that I can't seem to get phab to show me the context > for (which is a bit strange, I don't think I've run into that before): > https://reviews.llvm.org/D36836#877636 Perhaps part of this was carrying > discussion over from the IRC channel? > >> Would have it been fine if i based this on the open-source-licensed code? > > I believe that would require legal analysis to answer. > >> Would have it not been? Would same license question be raised? > > Likewise here (I suspect the answer would depend on what the license of the > open source code is). > >> Somehow i don't think it would have been. > > I don't wish to speculate about legal licensing issues on the mailing lists. > >> Is this really just about `Copyright SonarSource S.A., 2018, Switzerland. >> All content is copyright protected.` in >> https://www.sonarsource.com/docs/CognitiveComplexity.pdf ? >> But that is only about the document, not the algorithm. >> But even if we enternain the idea that all of the implementations must bow >> to that license, >> then surely this is not the first code in LLVM that is implicitly/explicitly >> based on copyrighted doc. >> >> This is rather frustrating. > > I am sorry and I agree that it's frustrating. > As far as I know, this captures the current state of affairs: > https://reviews.llvm.org/D36836#1031600 As far as I know, yes. Some further back&forth reiterated: > @Roman so you know, none of the non-SonarSource implementations have an > official license from us. > We put the spec out in the world and we're happy when someone uses it. And > that's all. > I appreciate how frustrated you must be with your implementation caught > between a proverbial rock and a hard place. > Unfortunately, we (the company) just aren't willing to do the paperwork. > (G. Ann Campbell) F13053113: reply.eml <https://reviews.llvm.org/F13053113> > and basically we're waiting for help from the foundation to clear the last > hurdle. Is foundation even aware of this controversy/situation? https://reviews.llvm.org/D36836#1021863, which is the last response i got, was 2.5 years ago. For all we/i know this has gone off their radar. I understand that it is fully possible that they simply haven't gotten around to it, but i think it would be important to check that it isn't the case of lost mail. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D36836/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D36836 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
