[Openmp-commits] Openmp-commits post from pawel.osmialowski@arm.com requires approval

From: Openmp-commits [mailto:openmp-commits-bounces@lists.llvm.org]
On Behalf Of C Bergström via Openmp-commits
Sent: Friday, April 22, 2016 11:44 AM
To: openmp-commits@lists.llvm.org
Subject: Re: [Openmp-commits] Openmp-commits post from
pawel.osmialowski@arm.com requires approval

> From: Paul Osmialowski <pawel.osmialowski@arm.com>
> To: pawel.osmialowski@arm.com, jonathan.l.peyton@intel.com,
> james.molloy@arm.com
> Cc: amara.emerson@arm.com, openmp-commits@lists.llvm.org,
> renato.golin@linaro.org
> Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2016 09:37:02 +0000
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] D19319: ARM Limited license agreement from the
> copyright/patent holder
> pawosm01 added a reviewer: jmolloy.
>
> Repository:
> rL LLVM
>
> http://reviews.llvm.org/D19319

I'm not sure how much of my ARMv8 work is actually copyright PathScale, but
I don't think every company which contributes to llvm/clang/llvm-openmp
needs to push some "license" agreement. If a license agreement is required
it would make more sense for some non-profit to receive a copy and steward
it..

I'm not opposed to ARM's push, but it just caught me as weird. Is this some
oddball ARM internal legal requirement?

Hi Chris,

As it seems you are one of the mailing list moderators: Could you then please approve this mail? It's important that the review mails get through to the others subscribed to this list...

To the content itself: First, I'm no lawyer, so just my opinion here:

From what LICENSE.txt says at the top:

"[...] As a contributor,
you agree to allow your code to be used under both. [...]"

The license agreement from Intel is probably in place because it was developed solely by Intel prior to contributing it to the LLVM project. But that's just a guess.
I think Jim was involved in this process, maybe he can help here...

Cheers,
Jonas

Guys,

I regret the need to add a licence in order to contribute to this project (LLVM OpenMP runtime). This will be unnecessary when the LLVM Foundation relicenses LLVM under Apache 2.0 (with certain runtime exceptions). As I learnt, given the current LLVM licences and developer policy, ARM requires an additional licence. This requirement is not peculiar to ARM. Precedents for such licences include IBM's licence in the PowerPC back end, Intel's licence in OpenMP, and ARM's licence in the AArch64 back end. Meanwhile, without our statement (fortunately, recently commited upstream), we might be unable to contribute to OpenMP. Please note that we regret this situation and that ARM strongly supports the LLVM Foundation's proposed re-licensing and intends to remove ARM-specific licences at that point.

Thanks,
Paul

What exactly has ARM contributed or planned to contribute to OpenMP?

I wish someone with authority would chime in as nothing has been clarified for "why".

Is this meant to be legally binding? To what extent?

Original Message