Re:Theo de Raadt on LLVM license change
by maxerickson on Saturday October 01, 2016 @11:15AM
(#12618177)
Right, which is clear as mud and not really an explanation. It's roughly equivalent to just saying they don't like the license.
Re:Theo de Raadt on LLVM license change
by teamhappy on Saturday October 01, 2016 @11:29AM
(#12618251)
According to the link I posted their goal is to publish OpenBSD under the terms of the original BSD license (so 2-Clause BSD, 3-Clause BSD, MIT, ISC, etc. are all fine).
The Apache license v2 is more restrictive than BSD-style licenses so they can't include code licensed under it.
Re:Theo de Raadt on LLVM license change
by michaelmrose on Saturday October 01, 2016 @12:32PM
(#12618560)
Its not clear that there is any legal restriction on them doing so.
Re:Theo de Raadt on LLVM license change
by teamhappy on Saturday October 01, 2016 @02:45PM
(#12619292)
In the sense that it would be perfectly legal for them to include Apache v2 licensed code? What in the world would restrict them from doing so? They can include Apache v2 code, GPLed code, proprietary code, any code they want, really. Their goal however is to build an OS that can be used under the terms of a BSD-style license similar to Debian's goal to build an OS that is "free."
> The original Apache license was similar to the Berkeley license, but source code published under version 2 of the Apache license is subject to additional restrictions and cannot be included into OpenBSD. (http://www.openbsd.org/policy.html)