triSYCL Non-standard license?

"LLVM Release License":

https://github.com/triSYCL/triSYCL/blob/master/LICENSE.TXT

Seems not very standard?

Jun 24 '17 11:06 hughperkins

I do not quite understand the point you're trying to make here. Care to elaborate?

Jun 25 '17 16:06 MathiasMagnus

If you use a well-known license, like: MIT, or Apache, then people already know approximately what using it implies. What advantage do you see in using yet-another-opensource-license?

Jun 25 '17 19:06 hughperkins

Since eventually triSYCL will come with a version of Clang/LLVM, this is why I lazily followed the LLVM license.

Jul 04 '17 11:07 keryell

Presumably clang/llvm would just be a third-party library? Even if you were to modify clang/llvm, you'd probably create a fork of clang/llvm, separate from triSYCL, and simply reference this fork as a third-party library, inside triSYCL?

Jul 05 '17 11:07 hughperkins

@hughperkins The LLVM license appears to be the copy-and-paste offspring of the https://opensource.org/licenses/MIT and https://opensource.org/licenses/BSD-3-Clause. I'm not saying that's a good thing, but "people already know approximately what using it implies" w.r.t. MIT and BSD-3.

Also, based upon http://llvm.org/Users.html, it would appear that a very large number of lawyers have approved the use of this license.

Jul 11 '17 23:07 jeffhammond

LLVM seems to move on more or less Apache 2.0. When they have finished the transition we can align on it.

Aug 16 '17 07:08 keryell

Cool :)

Aug 16 '17 07:08 hughperkins