Re: [Etoile-discuss] LLVM

[David Chisnall]

On 1 Mar 2008, at 15:27, Helge Hess wrote:

> On 29.02.2008, at 18:33, Hubert Chathi wrote:
> > How is it not Free software?
>
> Its not Free Software according to the FSF definition, which  
> everyone refers to when you are taking part in a mailinglist which  
> contains "GNU" or "GNA" in its name.
>
> http://www.fsf.org/licensing/essays/free-sw.html
>
> *Please* no discussions on this topic! Its clear that LLVM is NOT  
> Free Software. :-)
> [which doesn't necessarily imply that the licensing is unacceptable]

I didn't jump on this in the original post, but I should have done.   
The FSF defines Free Software as software that respects four freedoms  
of the user:

        • The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
	• The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your  
needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
	• The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor  
(freedom 2).
	• The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements  
to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3).  
Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

The LLVM license in no way violates any of these and therefore it is  
Free Software.  Please look on this page:

http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/

You will see that LLVM's license (the University of Illinois Open  
Source License) is listed under the 'GPL-Compatible Free Software  
Licenses' heading.

We have an official statement from the FSF that the LLVM license is a  
Free Software license.  Please can we now stop the FUD?

David