Open SylvainCorlay opened 1 year ago
We are not lawyers but our understanding is that Apache 2.0 gives some further guarantee of the companies that use open-source software in patents. That's mostly the reason LLVM went from MIT to Apache2.0 with llvm exceptions. Here is some more information: https://foundation.llvm.org/docs/relicensing/
I would be in favor of using BSD-3-Clause so that we can easily move code around between xeus-based kernels that are (for the most part) BSD as well (also as this started as a fork of xeus-cling). (PS: EU is not concerned with Software Patents presumably).
I am still hoping some of the developed facilities to be moved upstream LLVM at some point. What prevents moving code around kernels with the current license?
If we include fixes from here in xeus, xeus-cling, we would need to include the Apache license and list out the pieces of code explicitely. I would be in favor of reducing the noise!
Upstream contributions from BSD-3-Clause project to LLVM should not be an issue (and you are already relicensing BSD code in Apache license here).
Yes, indeed. Let us look into this.
Was there any particular reason to license this under the Apache license?
Since Xeus is BSD-3-Clause and Xeus-cling are BSD-3-Clause, it would add some fluidity between these projects to license xeus-clang-repl BSD-3-Clause as well.