Andrei's Google Talk

[Bruno Medeiros]

On 20/09/2010 21:48, Don wrote:
> retard wrote:
>> Mon, 20 Sep 2010 14:14:09 -0400, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 13:46:19 -0400, Bruno Medeiros
>>> <brunodomedeiros+spam at com.gmail> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 20/09/2010 16:13, klickverbot wrote:
>>>>> On 9/20/10 5:10 PM, Bruno Medeiros wrote:
>>>>>> I find myself wishing some more OSS projects had commercial-friendly
>>>>>> licenses. :-/ In particular LLVM, as I do agree it might have been
>>>>>> great
>>>>>> if Walter were able to work with it without these IP worries.
>>>>> You want something even more liberal than BSD?
>>>> Oh, from this discussion, I thought LLVM was GPL or LGPL, but not BSD
>>>> (or more concretely, a variant of BSD from what I see).
>>>>
>>>> What is the issue then of Walter taking a look at the LLVM code? It
>>>> does not seem to be the case that LLVM would send lawyers to anyone.
>>> BSD includes a binary attribution clause (not sure about LLVM), which
>>> makes it undesirable license for commercial use.
>>>
>>> The issue is taint. I find this aspect of copyright and licensing
>>> highly dubious (I can barely remember what I did last week, not to
>>> mention some souce code I read last year), but the issue is this: Let's
>>> say Walter does read LLVM source code, and then works on another
>>> compiler project for another company that is completely proprietary.
>>> LLVM has some possible connection to interject and say "you have to give
>>> LLVM developers credit," even if Walter didn't copy any code. Yeah,
>>> it's ridiculous and absurd, but possible.
>>
>> So the another company goes bankrupt if Walter has to mention the name
>> 'LLVM developers' in the documentation nobody reads and in an About
>> dialog nobody ever reads? I understand this when the other project
>> (LLVM in this case) has some viral license like GPL, but in this case
>> they only expect moral attribution. Your ideology is sick: "we must
>> steal as much as possible from the open source dickheads without
>> giving attribution, and turn the code into proprietary DRM shit to
>> enslave the world muhahaha"
>
> I think there's no problem with using the liberal license in a compiler,
> or in fact in any app. Walter deliberately errs on the paranoid side,
> because of past court experiences he's had.
>
> It's only in the standard library that the licensing can be a problem --
> we don't want "hello world" to require binary attribution.
>

Ah, I see now. I was only thinking in terms of the compiler, where it 
would not be a big deal if someone accused that the compiler used 
BSD-licensed code.
But for the standard library, it would not be good at all.

-- 
Bruno Medeiros - Software Engineer