1. 23
  1.  

  2. 3

    I hope that this is an end to the general prohibition on Apache 2-licensed code in the tree. The explanation offered in their copyright policy always felt weak to me in light of the specific clause they were discussing, and it would be an improvement IMO if that stopped being a consideration across the board.

    1. 4

      It’s in the gnu/ subtree, where licensing containment starts in general. GCC also lives/lived there. I doubt they’ll change their minds just because their compiler (again) changed the license to an undesirable one from out under them.

      1. 2

        Minor pedantry, but it’s not quite the Apache 2 license, it adds some extra exemptions for linking with GPLv2 code. Apache 2 and GPLv2 are incompatible. One of my concerns early in the relicensing was that there are things like QEMU that might want to use LLVM that are GPLv2-only. This was addressed with the exemption. The resulting license is compatible with pretty much anything.

      2. 2
        1. 10

          I’m confused by “LLVM quietly changing its license”.

          That was a multi-year effort ongoing since 2015, with multiple proposals, reports, a dedicated website and such.

          http://llvm.org/foundation/relicensing/

          1. 3

            It literally means Why wasn’t I consulted?

            1. 1

              Nice rabbit hole :)

          2. 2

            I believe that modern Xorg requires LLVM 10, so they are forced to adopt LLVM 10 regardless of their feelings about the Apache license.

            https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=159662446424896&w=2/

          3. 1

            This makes using zig on OpenBSD easier :)