On Tue, Oct 24, 2023 at 10:25 AM Bertrand Delacretaz <bdelacre...@codeconsult.ch> wrote: > > Hi Roman, > > On Tue, Oct 24, 2023 at 8:55 AM Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org> wrote: > > ...If you decide to distribute convenience binary artifact -- only then the > > LLVM exception > > will apply and it will be OK... > > Shouldn't that exception be mentioned at > https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html ? > > I searched for "llvm" there but found nothing.
It is a good point that we don't really talk about licensing implications around binary convenience artifacts on that page (although we do have a number of LEGAL JIRAs). It is not just llvm, but we also don't really talk about class-path exceptions in detail, nor do we talk about GNU's GCC Runtime Library Exception and there are a few others that come to mind right away. Part of me wants to propose we have a separate section of that page dedicated to use-cases like that, but part of me feels that the page is too long already. Historically, we haven't really paid too much attention to the binary convenience artifacts anyway -- so that perpetuates the status quo. At any rate, Bertrand, if you feel strongly about this -- perhaps a discussion on legal-discuss@ is warranted. Thanks, Roman. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
