Re: Upstream clang compiler plugins, licensing

On Wednesday 10 of October 2018, Kaganski Mike wrote:
> On 10/10/2018 10:53 PM, Tamás Zolnai wrote:
> > 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?


 I don't know, I'm not a lawyer or even close.

> I am not sure that having a subdirectory under core which is licensed
> differently from the rest of the code is good. I imagine a situation
> when one would need a license statement like
>
>    "All of my past & future contributions to LibreOffice may be
>     licensed under the MPLv2/LGPLv3+ dual license.
>
>     All my contributions to directory foo may be licensed under the bar
>     license.
>
>     All my contributions to directory bar may be licensed ..."
>
> which would become a nightmare. I suppose that if a separate-licensed
> thing is required, then just create a dedicated project, which would be
> external dependency for LibreOffice. Of course, you'd need to get the
> license statements for the existing code (as you discussed).


 We already have that, don't we? There are a number of patches under external/ 
and at least some of those shouldn't be MPLv2/LGPLv3+ licensed.

 And do we even need a generic statement in these cases? How many LO 
developers would ever create code for compilerplugins/ or external/ ?

-- 
 Luboš Luňák
 l.lunak@collabora.com