> This is a complicated topic that deals with legal issues and our primary goal is to unblock contributions from specific corporate contributors.
You were saying?
You were saying?
I happen to know because I was one person who donated my time. I was not in any way blocked. We were trying to find a way to help more people (and yes, companies, because companies tend to pay people) contribute to LLVM because that is one of the things that makes the project stronger.
So saying that the change was driven by these handful of contributors seems really off base. And in fact, my experience during the process was that the most motivated people were individual contributors, if anything pushing and pulling companies along (by finding good ways to address their potential concerns with any change like this).
Anyways, that was my experience from being involved in the process. YMMV of course.
It would be unlikely for any open source project to begin such a massive undertaking to re-license, from an already permissive license, without at least some corporate incentive/initiative to do so. No doubt lawyers were paid.
I understand what you're saying, but it is also being disingenuous.
Except it's not, since the community was the one who desired those contributions in the first place.
Seriously. You are going off making a lot of assertions without knowledge, evidence, or data.
Truthfully, if this is how the community you belong to operates, i'm somewhat glad they will no longer use LLVM.
That's a pretty uncharitable interpretation. The reality is there are companies who want to upstream their changes, but can't given the current license.
It's better for the community as a whole if more people/teams contribute their changes back, and that would be one of the benefits of the relicense.
It is a privilege as a community member to be able to be paid to work on a project like LLVM. I'm so grateful the community has such a healthy relationship with both academia and corporations.
Many community members at the yearly conference mention that they have custom patches that they can't upstream because of licensing issue. Improving this means to me that we can extend the community and make it stronger.
Of course, you are off asserting a whole bunch of stuff with no data or knowledge, so i don't think that will stop you.
Additionally, you keep asserting/repeating it's "not for the benefit of the community at large" or "in the interests or desire of the community".
Can you please cite any evidence of that?