Re LLVM’s license issue. I believe MIT is a safer choice for compiler-rt
before we confirm with ASF.
Because strictly LLVM’s apache license comes with an exemption Clause which
needs to be reviewed. Given that the code is also dual licensed under MIT,
we should take that as a safer choice until we
Hi Justin,
for ./3rdparty/compiler-rt/builtin_fp16.h , from
[here](https://github.com/llvm-mirror/compiler-rt/blob/master/LICENSE.TXT#L240-L241)
it says it was dual licensed under University of Illinois and the MIT
license, though the current LICENSE file declares ALv2. I believe the
builtin_fp16.
Thanks Justin for helping, we'll make modification accordingly.
On Sat, Nov 23, 2019 at 2:15 PM Justin Mclean wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I checked the release candidate further:
> - Signatures and hashes good
> - DISCLAIMER exists
> - LICENSE is missing a few things
> - NOTICE needs some minor adjustment
Hi,
I checked the release candidate further:
- Signatures and hashes good
- DISCLAIMER exists
- LICENSE is missing a few things
- NOTICE needs some minor adjustments
- Some files are missing ASF headers e.g. [1][2][3][4][5] (+ others)
- Some files incorrectly have an ASF headers or have ASF lines
Thanks Justin! This is exactly kind of feedback we are looking for.
The community would like to hold the release to the highest possible
standard, which means we would like to make sure the release meet the
criteria of the standard disclaimer. We will look into the
compatibility issue of LLVM lice
Hi,
I’ve not had an extensive look but I note this license in your license file:
LLVM Release License
While a BSD style license (I think) it not listen in Apaches list of compatible
licenses. You’ll also note it include other 3rd party licensed buts of
software, these would need to be checked i
