True.
FWIW, this is really the only strong objection we've heard to the overall direction of this change.
FWIW, this is really the only strong objection we've heard to the overall direction of this change.
.. You might think that objection would be listened to more readily, or do the interest of a handful of corporations hold greater weight?
OpenBSD will undoubtedly be forced to fork LLVM 8, and likely have to take on the burden of asking individual developers to dual-license contributions they backport going forward. This will place them in a similar position they had with GCC, since the GPLv3 license change.
[0] https://github.com/openbsd/src/commit/e688c2b0648a80551cf735...
[1] https://github.com/openbsd/src/commit/9866f44de26a847eaed067...
[2] https://github.com/openbsd/src/commit/c0f0c565f0b312e55b410b...
Mark Kettenis formal rejection on behalf of the OpenBSD project: http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2017-April/112300.h...
We did listen, but we have specific goals that after a great deal of discussion are best addressed with the approach of the Apache 2 license. The objection was to those goals in many ways, not to the particular mechanisms.
And we really did listen to the concerns about the goals (specifically providing strong protection against patent issues) but there was strong consensus in the community that this was a real problem we wanted to address, and so we moved forward.
I am truly sad that this will cause issues w/ the OpenBSD community, but we had consensus and needed to make progress.