On Wed, Feb 9, 2022 at 10:53 AM Florian Weimer <fweimer@xxxxxxxxxx> 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-framework > > > > 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 _______________________________________________ legal mailing list -- legal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to legal-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
