On Apr 25, 2010, at 2:30 PM, Richard Kenner wrote: >> The LLVM project does not aim to be able to change the license in the >> future, > > Nobody "aims" to change something in the future, but nobody has a crystal > ball either and it can often be hard to predict what might have to be done > in the future.
We'll see. Fortunately the future comes sooner than anyone expects. > If there's no such document, then what does the project do if, unknown to > them, some employee of a large company contributed code without the > permission of his employer, the project distributes that code, and then the > large software company sues for infringment? This would be on topic if the thread were "Why not contribute? (to LLVM)", but it isn't. If you're really concerned about LLVM developers, that's one thing, but this is certainly not the place to discuss it. I find it amusing the willingness of various developers to debate the veracity of the LLVM policies, but the simulataneous (apparent) unwillingness to address GCC's (perceived) problems. Why not spend your time helping improve the documentation, increase modularity, or improve the copyright assignment process, rather than participate so much in this thread? On Apr 25, 2010, at 7:12 PM, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote: > Are you 100% sure that the fact that LLVM does not ask for your > employer disclaimer means that you do not need to ask your employer > for some paper to legally contribute code? Are you sure you are not > exposing yourself to a legal risk? This is such an incredibly immense scoop of FUD that I couldn't help but respond to it :-) Isn't this thread supposed to be about finding ways to improve GCC? -Chris
