Re: Upstream clang compiler plugins, licensing

Hi Noel,

It's good idea to pick up one plugin first and discuss with the authors and
relicense that plugin only. I think this also means that we'll need to
change the license header of the plugin's source file to LLVM license so
it's unambigous what is the license of this specific plugin. The only
question is that whether it's OK to have mixed licensed files inside LO
source code (some files with LLVM license, others with LO's license).

I expected that I need to adapt the code for clang, but I think it's still
good to make licensing compatible even if I use only small part of the code
one-on-one way.

Best Regards,
Tamás

Noel Grandin <noelgrandin@gmail.com> ezt írta (időpont: 2018. okt. 7., V,
19:55):

> IANAL, obviously, but possibly you could pick the plugins you want and ask
> all the people who worked on that plugin to re-license their work (there
> are not that many, and they are mostly still around)
>
> For the record, for anything in compilerplugins/ that I have touched, I
> grant you permission to submit my work to LLVM under their license.
>
> Also, note that LLVM is likely to want you to write the plugins in quite
> a different style, they don't use our style of overriding ASTVisitor
> anymore, so upstreaming is not trivial, they like using some kind of
> matcher API for traversing the AST, and they have a whole Checker framework
> for clang-tidy stuff.