On 04/25/2010 11:20 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 8:04 AM, Chris Lattner<clatt...@apple.com> wrote:
On Apr 25, 2010, at 7:59 AM, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
So, is the copyright disclaimer implicit in the patch submission? Who
defines the conditions?
That web page is everything that there is. I am aware that this is not as
legally air-tight as the FSF disclaimer, but empirically many companies seem to
have no problem with it.
Can't resist. So in theory, someone can sue LLVM and win. If it is the
case, I may
not want to use LLVM as my system compiler.
Considering that Linux, as the system kernel for many of us, is in a
similar position, I don't see why the compiler, which isn't even a
necessary part of a running system, would need to be more strict...
In any case, the FSF disclaimer is paper work. It may help in some
theoretical situation - or maybe it will be called invalid at the time
it is presented. The question is whether the added paper work is really
providing protection, or is it just slowing contributions? I don't have
the answer to that - I only see that LLVM and many other projects under
various free / open source licenses are proceeding just fine without
such paper work, so on the surface, it does seem like an overall loss
for GCC. One day might it prove its value? Who knows...
Cheers,
mark
