www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com.INVALID>
Subject Re: Apache 2.0 License with LLVM Exceptions
Date Thu, 07 Nov 2019 22:00:27 GMT
I agree with what Chris and Matt are saying, but I'm still wondering if these code templates
or the entire output have been ruled to be non-copyrightable and whether the ALv2 didn't really
cover LLVM's needs.

-Alex

´╗┐On 11/7/19, 12:01 PM, "Matt Sicker" <boards@gmail.com> wrote:

    This could overlap with compile time macros and code generation, too.
    This doesn't need to be limited to just compilers. See for example the
    various code generators for Avro, Thrift, etc.
    
    On Thu, 7 Nov 2019 at 13:49, Christopher Schultz
    <chris@christopherschultz.net> wrote:
    >
    > Alex,
    >
    > On 11/7/19 13:21, Alex Harui wrote:
    > > You could certainly be right.  I'm not sure what part of a LLVM
    > > compiler gets added to the output.
    >
    > This would be for any compiler.
    >
    > For example, if you have this C source:
    >
    >   int i;
    >   char *s = (char*)malloc(10 * (sizeof char));
    >
    >   for(i=0; i<10; ++i)
    >     *(s+i) = '0' + i;
    >
    > Perhaps the compiler will unroll that loop and produce the machine code
    > equivalent of :
    >
    >   s[0] = '0';
    >   s[1] = '1';
    >   s[2] = '2';
    >   .. and so on.
    >
    > This is essentially a code template which gets dumped into the output of
    > the compiler. There are many such kinds of code templates. You can use a
    > binary analyzer to determine which compiler generated the binary, and
    > often determine which *version* of the compiler generated it.
    >
    > That is, you can tell the difference between binaries generated by LLVM
    > versus GCC versus some other compiler given the exact same source. That
    > implies that each compiler has something of its own fingerprints on the
    > output. There is more than one way to skin a cat.
    >
    > Those fingerprints could be considered a part of the compiler itself.
    >
    > Also consider static linking and a compiler-provided standard C library.
    > Someone had to write malloc for your target architecture. If the OS
    > isn't providing a dynamically-linked library for stdlib, then the
    > compiler is providing it. Not everything that goes into your binary
    > comes from the code you fed into the compiler.
    >
    > > I think GCC has that exception not because compiler source/bytecode
    > > gets added but because GNU-licensed compiler library code gets added
    > > to the output.
    > I think we are saying the same things, here (eg static linking).
    >
    > > Apache Flex and Royale have library code whose source is part of the
    > > release that gets added to the output as well.  So if GCC/GNU really
    > > need an explicit exception, Flex and Royale might need it too.
    > While it may be true that Flex and Royale should address this, I don't
    > believe those projects need to be released under an "altered license".
    > It just needs to be clear that the artifacts produced by the
    > AL2-licensed software do not also carry that license along with them.
    >
    > -chris
    >
    > > On 11/7/19, 10:06 AM, "Sean Owen" <srowen@gmail.com> wrote:
    > >
    > >     (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://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.gnu.org%2Flicenses%2Fgcc-exception-3.1.html&amp;data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C784073a90c234991727f08d763bd4bba%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637087536984174997&amp;sdata=pbAdthuyC03Z6s8LAokr0c3uj6wW37kt2L9bsyf7UM4%3D&amp;reserved=0
    > >     >
    > >     > 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
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
    > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
    > > For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
    > >
    >
    
    
    -- 
    Matt Sicker <boards@gmail.com>
    
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------
    To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
    For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
    
    

Mime
View raw message