Status of SEH?

We expect that contributors will notify the oversight group if they
have patent concerns.
We expect that otherwise, patent discussions will not take place on
the public development mailing lists.

I'd be glad to see wording someone wants to use here (i didn't write
the current language) :slight_smile:

Alp,

Erm, should not be acceptable.

—Owen

I would like to say, in Alp’s defense, that I definitely felt like it was more than just a polite request not to discuss something on the list. Being told to “talk to my lawyer” was not particularly constructive. I appreciate that Chandler was trying to keep the discussion from going any farther, but I also appreciate that Alp was trying to stick up for me and turn it into positive changes for the list and policy documentation. I would also like to mention that until today, I had not read the page that Alp linked to: http://llvm.org/docs/DeveloperPolicy.html. I would suggest putting a link to that on the first page of http://clang.llvm.org/get_involved.html so that when people sign up for the list, they know what is expected of them, which is something I’ve still had a hard time figuring out.

Thanks,
JB

Hi All,

Whatever decision you make here, could you please post them at a significant place, on both mailing-list info page and Developer Policy page?
This has been brought up several times, and the only way to avoid this all over again is stating everything explicitly.

And as of SEH technical details, I will start a separate thread.

I agree, we should be more clear about this on the developer policy.

Alp, the problem with discussion on the mailing list is twofold: 1) for almost everyone, patent discussion is speculation, because they are not a patent attorneys. Patent law doesn't make sense, and applying logic to it only makes things worse. 2) when patents get discussed, invariably people get irritated about the state of the patent system and the discussion spirals off in an off topic way. I'd rather that the community stay productive and focused on technical matters, while people who understand this discuss it offlist.

Thanks!

-Chris

<responding to llvmdev too>

There are roughly no open source projects where the
rule is "talk about patents all you like on random development mailing
lists"

Your remarks suggest that you've worked on a limited range of projects without the perspective it takes to accurately word a developer policy like this for an international audience.

I agree, we absolutely need to be more clear about this on the developer policy.

The problem with discussion on the mailing list is twofold: 1) for almost everyone (myself included), patent discussion is *speculation*, because they are not qualified patent attorneys. Patent law doesn't make sense, and applying logic to it only makes things worse. 2) when patents get discussed, invariably people get irritated about the state of the patent system and the discussion spirals off in an off-topic and destructive direction.

I'd rather that the community stay productive and focused on technical matters, while people who understand this discuss it off-list. It also happens that this specific topic is one that is well understood by people who care a lot about such things.

I can't stand by while new contributors receive abuse for some violation of a rule that's not even written in the LLVM developer policy.

Yes, the policy needs to be more clear.

What next, turn people away because they have a funny name? Reject patches because their skin color is different to yours? I'm disappointed that you've tried to defend what is clearly repeated and inexcusable behaviour by Chandler towards people who are graciously trying to help out. In so far as there is a community, we must stand up distance ourselves from behaviour like that.

We're all friends here. Harassment will not be tolerated, and I'm sorry if you took the responses about this issue that way. You're absolutely right that the policy should be made crystal clear, and that future instances of this can be handled simply by pointing to the policy. I don't speak for Chandler, but I'm pretty sure that he didn't mean to drive anyone away - he was just being a little over-eager in enforcing the poorly documented policy we have.

-Chris

I think we must be able to notify if someone brings up a topic/technology that is patented. We can't expect everyone to know all technologies and know which are patented. Especially not non-professional contributes doing this on their spare time.

Just saying "we can't do this" without any reason is not very satisfying.

Perhaps this particular topic (SEH) deserves to be added an FAQ or similar? It's be brought up a couple of times before here.

Thanks for this link. I lost it in the tangent that this thread took, but this presentation is great.

maybe you should directly contact Reid Kleckner - google seems to invest much in this area

anyone got an idea about the current PDB support status in LLVM/clang?