Upstream clang compiler plugins, licensing

[Tamás Zolnai]

Hi Lubos, all,

Thanks for the feedback. I did not notice that a lots of compilerplugins
source files are actually licensed with LLVM license, not only the plugin.*
files. I expect that it happened as you described, LO header template was
just copied without considering what is the right license.
With this new information I agree that it would be the best to clear the
licensing and use LLVM in every source file under compilerplugins folder.
So the question is what is the best way to do that. What is the best way to
ask every authors for a permission to relicense the code? Do we need some
kind of short license statement from the authors, similar the general LO
license statement?

Thanks,
Tamás

Luboš Luňák <l.lunak at collabora.com> ezt írta (időpont: 2018. okt. 10., Sze,
12:55):

> On Sunday 07 of October 2018, Tamás Zolnai wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I plan to work on clang static analyzer in the next monthes and I'm
> > wondering whether how we can move some of the LO's compiler plugins to
> > upstream.
> >
> > As I see LO's license is not compatible with LLVM license [1], as LLVM
> > license is a more permissive license which allows to make the code part
> of
> > a proprietary software for example. So I just wonder what is the best way
> > to integrate things to clang from LO, either as a compiler plugin or a
> > static analyzer check.
> >
> > An idea might be to relicense the compilerplugin code with the LLVM
> > license, which means additional administration of course, but would make
> > reusing the code much easier. However I'm not sure this is the best way
> to
> > solve this licensing incompatibility.
>
>  Yes, that's the right idea. In fact all the plugins should be
> LLVM-licensed,
> that's the way I started it and e.g. plugin.* explicitly specifies that
> license. It doesn't even really make sense to use any other license for
> this
> code, I expect people just copy&pasted the generic LO header without
> thinking
> about it.
>
>  As far as I'm concerned, just ask everyone involved to change the license
> to
> LLVM's and if somebody disagrees, nuke that code (unless that somebody
> would
> have a good reason for it, which I doubt).
>
> --
>  Luboš Luňák
>  l.lunak at collabora.com
> _______________________________________________
> LibreOffice mailing list
> LibreOffice at lists.freedesktop.org
> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice/attachments/20181010/77c41939/attachment.html>