Re:Theo de Raadt on LLVM license change
by protomyth on Saturday October 01, 2016 @01:06PM
(#12618755)
> Painting the situation as "corporate contributer-wannabes" and "IANAL but let's do it anyway" is loaded language that seems intended to bring up negative tropes.
Theo de Raadt said neither phrase.
Re:Theo de Raadt on LLVM license change
by karlshea on Saturday October 01, 2016 @01:30PM
(#12618893)
I think everybody here knows what ">" means.
Re:Theo de Raadt on LLVM license change
by notaplumber on Saturday October 01, 2016 @01:33PM
(#12618907)
Except for refulgentis, apparently.
Re:Theo de Raadt on LLVM license change
by karlshea on Saturday October 01, 2016 @01:37PM
(#12618931)
I don't see where refulgentis claims Theo did. Clearly, those are quotes from the person Theo is replying to.
Theo seems to agree with that person though, and "wishing ill on a series of people clearly trying to do well" certainly could apply to both parties in the email.
Re:Theo de Raadt on LLVM license change
by refulgentis on Saturday October 01, 2016 @05:18PM
(#12619925)
I apologize, I didn't intend to give the impression my post was limited to addressing Theo. I expressly avoided addressing an individual, but clearly that wasn't enough.
They've hired lawyers, and consulted the community. The community's predominant concern was whether the new license (Apache2) would be compatible with GPLv2.
In the "We are now in this year" link, it's explicated how they consulted a gaggle of open source lawyers, determined the predominant belief was the new license was compatible with GPLv2. But they didn't stop there – they had a lawyer draft an addendum to really ensure that!
Not a good look. Fever swamp paranoia, and wishing ill on a series of people clearly trying to do well and address every concern.