On Wed, Feb 9, 2022 at 10:53 AM Florian Weimer
<fweimer(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> * Serge Guelton:
>
>> the LLVM project has moved to an Apache Software License 2.0 with exception
>> license, referenced as
https://releases.llvm.org/10.0.0/LICENSE.TXT
>>
>> Some more details are available here:
>>
>>
https://llvm.org/docs/DeveloperPolicy.html#new-llvm-project-license-frame...
>>
>> Does it make sense to have it listed in
>>
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main#Good_Licenses and the
>> associated short name be compatible with, say, rpmdiff?
> Isn't our position that the relicensing has not happened yet, that the
> SPDX identifiers in the sources are incorrect, and that the project
> still distributes the sources under the old LLVM license (called “NCSA”
> in the Fedora framework)?
Separately from that issue, I am aware of one unresolved (for my team
at Red Hat) longstanding objection to some aspects of the language of
the LLVM exception (raised by at least one person outside of Red Hat).
I wouldn't want to classify the exception as "good" without reaching
some sort of resolution on that issue.
Richard
just saw this after I wrote my email. That's interesting and a bit
surprising - I'd be curious to hear more about what the objection is
(and especially since I know LLVM got a lot of feedback when they were
drafting it!)
Jilayne
_______________________________________________
legal mailing list -- legal(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to legal-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/legal@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure