Page MenuHomePhabricator

[ARM] Add ARM contributions agreement.
Needs ReviewPublic

Authored by fpetrogalli on Nov 30 2016, 4:10 AM.

Diff Detail

Event Timeline

fpetrogalli retitled this revision from to [ARM] Add ARM contributions agreement..
fpetrogalli updated this object.
fpetrogalli added reviewers: hfinkel, chandlerc.
fpetrogalli added a subscriber: parallel_libs-commits.

Er, will we need one of those per company? Odd...

I thought that the general license and copyright terms already protected from patents, copyrights and other legal perils, so this looks redundant and a dangerous precedent.

I think we need lawyers looking at this...

--renato

Er, will we need one of those per company? Odd...

Maybe I should have added a bit more of context in the description of the commit. This has been done for other LLVM (sub) projects ARM is contributing.

Examples are:

I thought that the general license and copyright terms already protected from patents, copyrights and other legal perils, so this looks redundant and a dangerous precedent.

I think we need lawyers looking at this...

--renato

If that's there already, why add a new one on the root of the project?

If that's there already, why add a new one on the root of the project?

Isn't the license relative to the source tree? So that each of clang/llvm/openmp/paralell-libs/whatever-llvm subproject could have in principle different licenses?

All I have done here is to apply a request from our legal team, who has been asking to add such extension to the code base, as a requirement for any contribution ARM intends to do to parallel libs.

I see your point though: 1) parallel-libs is an llvm subproject which (quoting from README.rst) "[...] will use the normal LLVM license [...]" and 2) an "ARM contributions agreement" is already stated in the license file of the LLVM codebase, therefore 3) parallel-libs inherits the ARM contribution extension.

At the same time, I am not a lawyer, so I trust that our legal team knows what is best to do here.

One last thing. The contributions that ARM intend to upload to parallel-libs could in principle make parallel-libs an external (to llvm) library so that I somehow see the point of making sure that any contribution outside of an llvm context is covered by ARM contribution agreement (disclaimer: this last sentence is my personal interpretation of the problem, take it with a pinch of salt, i.e. don't base your decision on this as I might have misinterpreted the legal need of this license extension)

Thanks!

At the same time, I am not a lawyer, so I trust that our legal team knows what is best to do here.

I obviously cannot offer you or ARM any legal advice, nor I can assert how the license works across repositories, that's why I included Dan and Chris in this review.

Also, don't assume that the legal department knows what's best for LLVM, only what's best for ARM. Ultimately, the decision on how to proceed will be taken inside the community, most likely the foundation or whomever is the legal authority over the project.

It's possible that their reply to this review is to "contact legal@llvm.org" or something.

cheers,
--renato