Date: prev next · Thread: first prev next last
2018 Archives by date, by thread · List index


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@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@collabora.com
_______________________________________________
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice


Context


Privacy Policy | Impressum (Legal Info) | Copyright information: Unless otherwise specified, all text and images on this website are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. This does not include the source code of LibreOffice, which is licensed under the Mozilla Public License (MPLv2). "LibreOffice" and "The Document Foundation" are registered trademarks of their corresponding registered owners or are in actual use as trademarks in one or more countries. Their respective logos and icons are also subject to international copyright laws. Use thereof is explained in our trademark policy.