Re:Theo de Raadt on LLVM license change
by johncolanduoni on Saturday October 01, 2016 @12:30PM
(#12618544)
The whole point of the switch to Apache 2.0 was the patent grant. The old code will not be effectively under the Apache 2.0 license as far as this clause is concerned because the patent grant is a restriction on the copyright holder, not the user. You can't just take the fact that the authors of some parts of the code agreed not to sue you for patents they implemented in their respective contributions and then force everybody else not to sue you for their own patents.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Theo de Raadt on LLVM license change
by JoshTriplett on Saturday October 01, 2016 @12:59PM
(#12618727)
I'm not suggesting that it's perfect. I'm just suggesting that from a legal point of view, the current license grants enough permissions that they don't have to have unanimous agreement from every copyright holder; the scenario painted in the linked email couldn't happen as written.
(They may still want unanimous agreement, either to have more code under the new license or to confirm community consensus.)