www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sean Owen <sro...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Apache 2.0 License with LLVM Exceptions
Date Thu, 07 Nov 2019 18:06:34 GMT
(IIUC, the issue isn't tool output per se, which doesn't seem like it
would ever be covered by an OSS license, but output that includes part
of the tool itself, whose redistribution is governed by OSS licenses.)

On Thu, Nov 7, 2019 at 12:02 PM Alex Harui <aharui@adobe.com.invalid> wrote:
>
> Interesting question.  I thought it was established that tool output was not licensed
by the tool's license, but I can't find that in Google right now, and GCC/GNU took the time
to create an exception to make it more explicit:  https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gcc-exception-3.1.html
>
> If I use MS Word to write a document, the document is not under MS's license, but maybe
that is explicitly called out in their EULA.  Same for Adobe Acrobat and PDF files.
>
> Apache Flex and Royale have compilers.  I don't recall any explicit exception in Adobe's
EULA for Flex.   So if it turns out tool output needs explicit exceptions then we might need
them for Flex and Royale.  It could be that I've always thought of compiled output as a translation
(In fact, Royale's compiler 'transpiles' from ActionScript to JavaScript, so not a binary
output), and AIUI, translations are copyright the original owner.
>
> -Alex
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org


Mime
View raw message