If the purpose was to facilitate lawsuits, and these lawsuits haven’t occurred after all these years, it seems like it didn’t work. Maybe you are wrong about the intent?
Aaron > On Apr 18, 2021, at 12:50 AM, Christopher Dimech <dim...@gmx.com> wrote: > > > I know that Apple can make some strong ownership claims. Also Red Hat, > but I consider it minimal. Apple has a very long history of aggressive > legal actions. > >> Sent: Sunday, April 18, 2021 at 7:24 PM >> From: "Aaron Gyes" <aaron...@icloud.com> >> To: "Christopher Dimech" <dim...@gmx.com> >> Subject: Re: A suggestion for going forward from the RMS/FSF debate >> >> Can you tell me about some of the lawsuits that resulted? >> >> – >> Aaron >> >>> On Apr 18, 2021, at 12:08 AM, Christopher Dimech <dim...@gmx.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> >>>> Sent: Sunday, April 18, 2021 at 5:46 PM >>>> From: "Aaron Gyes" <aaron...@icloud.com> >>>> To: "Christopher Dimech" <dim...@gmx.com> >>>> Subject: Re: A suggestion for going forward from the RMS/FSF debate >>>> >>>>> Furthermore, it continues to nullify the Apache License by allowing patent >>>>> treachery. The LLVM License is thus a perfidious license intended to >>>>> allow the licensor to sue you at their choosing.= >>>> >>>> “Patent treachery”? And the intent of the license is to... accommodate >>>> lawsuits? >>> >>> Correct. The Apache License included certain patent termination and >>> counterclaim provisions, made void and null by the LLVM Exceptions. >>> Originally, the LLVM License >>> was based on the two free software licenses - the X11 license and the >>> 3-clause BSD license. By 2005, Apple managed to hamstring the project by >>> hiring Chris Lattner >>> and giving him a team to work on LLVM. >>> >>>> That’s some very motivated reasoning you’re doing right there. >>>> >>>> Aaron >>
