Licensing of PGO instrumented code.

[Johan Engelen via digitalmars-d-ldc]

On Thursday, 15 September 2016 at 22:37:55 UTC, David Nadlinger 
wrote:
> On 15 Sep 2016, at 23:23, Johan Engelen via digitalmars-d-ldc 
> wrote:
>> There is currently an LLVM discussion about relicensing 
>> compiler-rt to allow unattributed binary form distribution, to 
>> solve this problem as far as I understand.
>> http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2016-September/104778.html
>>
>> How do we address this issue?
>
> What are the Rust people doing? (IIRC they depend on 
> compiler-rt by default, right?)

Thanks for that pointer.
It lead me to this:
https://www.reddit.com/r/rust/comments/2db531/how_to_display_the_rust_copyright_notice_in/

Which lead me to this:
http://llvm.org/docs/DeveloperPolicy.html#license
"In addition to the UIUC license, the runtime library components 
of LLVM (compiler_rt, libc++, and libclc) are also licensed under 
the MIT License, which does not contain the binary redistribution 
clause. As a user of these runtime libraries, it means that you 
can choose to use the code under either license (and thus don’t 
need the binary redistribution clause), and as a contributor to 
the code that you agree that any contributions to these libraries 
be licensed under both licenses. We feel that this is important 
for runtime libraries, because they are implicitly linked into 
applications and therefore should not subject those applications 
to the binary redistribution clause."

Thus, I think we should copy the text above into our LICENSE 
file, specifying it for profile-rt (our copy of compiler-rt's 
lib/profile) and include the MIT License. And then we are good to 
go.
Also see Rust's license file: 
https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/COPYRIGHT

(Upon further thought I think the relicensing effort in LLVM is 
about being able to move code from LLVM to compiler-rt. The issue 
I am discussing here is actually already solved the dual license.)

-Johan