1. 34
  1. 6

    Here is an interview with pwildt from 2017 where he also talks about importing clang: https://garbage.jcs.org/episodes/41

    1. 4

      This article is puzzling.

      up to the 8.0.1 version, which was the latest version released under the NCSA license. From then all later LLVM versions have been released under the Apache 2.0 license, which couldn’t be included in OpenBSD.

      A compromise was thus inevitable, and LLVM 10.0.0 was imported into -current in August 2020.

      so that couldn't was just subjective?!

      1. 4

        I was curious what the objections to the Apache 2.0 licence were as I generally consider it to be quite permissive. I found this info:

        The original Apache license was similar to the Berkeley license, but source code published under version 2 of the Apache license is subject to additional restrictions and cannot be included into OpenBSD. In particular, if you use code under the Apache 2 license, some of your rights will terminate if you claim in court that the code violates a patent.

        A license can only be considered fully permissive if it allows use by anyone for all the future without giving up any of their rights. If there are conditions that might terminate any rights in the future, or if you have to give up a right that you would otherwise have, even if exercising that right could reasonably be regarded as morally objectionable, the code is not free.

        In addition, the clause about the patent license is problematic because a patent license cannot be granted under Copyright law, but only under contract law, which drags the whole license into the domain of contract law. But while Copyright law is somewhat standardized by international agreements, contract law differs wildly among jurisdictions. So what the license means in different jurisdictions may vary and is hard to predict.


        1. 1

          Well, “couldn’t” always implies a possibility not a certainty. Also, the compromise was related to a choice between GPL v3 and APL 2.0.

          1. -2

            And they chose protecting patent holders over users of software who want the right to inspect and modify it? Cool cool. I’m always glad to see OpenBSD putting security first.

            1. 5

              What parts of OpenBSD can users not “inspect and modify?”

              1. 1

                The proprietary systems that are derived from OpenBSD where as a user your security fixes come at the whims of a vendor.

                1. 2

                  I can’t follow the connection you’re trying to make between OpenBSD’s licensing stance and users of proprietary systems being beholden to vendors for security fixes.

                  If license was the critical piece to that puzzle I’d expect to see the millions of Android users guerrilla patching vulns on their phones and not stuck beholden to Samsung, Sony, etc. After all, it’s a Linux kernel under the GPLv2…which the FSF says is for protecting the rights of users to inspect and modify the code.