diff --git a/llvm/docs/DeveloperPolicy.html b/llvm/docs/DeveloperPolicy.html index 6e8f9703cc71..987b622f2edf 100644 --- a/llvm/docs/DeveloperPolicy.html +++ b/llvm/docs/DeveloperPolicy.html @@ -37,240 +37,263 @@
Introduction
-

This document contains the LLVM Developer Policy which defines the - project's policy towards developers and their contributions. The intent of - this policy is to eliminate mis-communication, rework, and confusion that - might arise from the distributed nature of LLVM's development. By stating - the policy in clear terms, we hope each developer can know ahead of time - what to expect when making LLVM contributions.

-

This policy is also designed to accomplish the following objectives:

-
    -
  1. Attract both users and developers to the LLVM project.
    2. -
  2. Make life as simple and easy for contributors as possible.
    3. -
  3. Keep the top of Subversion trees as stable as possible.
    4. -
- -

This policy is aimed at frequent contributors to LLVM. People interested in - contributing one-off patches can do so in an informal way by sending them to - the - llvm-commits mailing list and engaging another developer to see it through - the process.

+

This document contains the LLVM Developer Policy which defines the project's + policy towards developers and their contributions. The intent of this policy + is to eliminate miscommunication, rework, and confusion that might arise from + the distributed nature of LLVM's development. By stating the policy in clear + terms, we hope each developer can know ahead of time what to expect when + making LLVM contributions.

+

This policy is also designed to accomplish the following objectives:

+ +
    +
  1. Attract both users and developers to the LLVM project.
    2. + +
  2. Make life as simple and easy for contributors as possible.
    3. + +
  3. Keep the top of Subversion trees as stable as possible.
    4. +
+

This policy is aimed at frequent contributors to LLVM. People interested in + contributing one-off patches can do so in an informal way by sending them to + the + llvm-commits + mailing list and engaging another developer to see it through the + process.

Developer Policies
-

This section contains policies that pertain to frequent LLVM - developers. We always welcome one-off patches from - people who do not routinely contribute to LLVM, but we expect more from - frequent contributors to keep the system as efficient as possible for - everyone. - Frequent LLVM contributors are expected to meet the following requirements in - order for LLVM to maintain a high standard of quality.

+

This section contains policies that pertain to frequent LLVM developers. We + always welcome one-off patches from people who do not + routinely contribute to LLVM, but we expect more from frequent contributors + to keep the system as efficient as possible for everyone. Frequent LLVM + contributors are expected to meet the following requirements in order for + LLVM to maintain a high standard of quality.

Stay Informed
-

Developers should stay informed by reading at least the - llvmdev - email list. If you are doing anything more than just casual work on LLVM, - it is suggested that you also subscribe to the - llvm-commits +

Developers should stay informed by reading at least the + llvmdev email + list. If you are doing anything more than just casual work on LLVM, it is + suggested that you also subscribe to the + llvm-commits list and pay attention to changes being made by others.

-

We recommend that active developers register an email account with - LLVM Bugzilla and preferably subscribe to - the llvm-bugs - email list to keep track of bugs and enhancements occurring in LLVM.

+ +

We recommend that active developers register an email account with + LLVM Bugzilla and preferably subscribe to + the llvm-bugs + email list to keep track of bugs and enhancements occurring in LLVM.

Making a Patch
+

When making a patch for review, the goal is to make it as easy for the + reviewer to read it as possible. As such, we recommend that you:

-

When making a patch for review, the goal is to make it as easy for the - reviewer to read it as possible. As such, we recommend that you:

-
    -
  1. Make your patch against the Subversion trunk, not a branch, and not an - old version of LLVM. This makes it easy to apply the patch.
    2. +
      +
    1. Make your patch against the Subversion trunk, not a branch, and not an old + version of LLVM. This makes it easy to apply the patch.
      2. -
    2. Similarly, patches should be submitted soon after they are generated. - Old patches may not apply correctly if the underlying code changes between - the time the patch was created and the time it is applied.
      3. - -
    3. Patches should be made with this command: - 
      svn diff -x -u
      - or with the utility utils/mkpatch, which makes it easy to read the - diff.
      4. - -
    4. Patches should not include differences in generated code such as the - code generated by autoconf or tblgen. The - utils/mkpatch utility takes care of this for you.
      5. -
    +
  2. Similarly, patches should be submitted soon after they are generated. Old + patches may not apply correctly if the underlying code changes between the + time the patch was created and the time it is applied.
    3. + +
  3. Patches should be made with this command: +
    +
    +svn diff -x -u
+
    +
    + or with the utility utils/mkpatch, which makes it easy to read + the diff.
    4. + +
  4. Patches should not include differences in generated code such as the code + generated by autoconf or tblgen. The + utils/mkpatch utility takes care of this for you.
    5. +
-

When sending a patch to a mailing list, it is a good idea to send it as an - attachment to the message, not embedded into the text of the - message. This ensures that your mailer will not mangle the patch when it - sends it (e.g. by making whitespace changes or by wrapping lines).

- -

For Thunderbird users: Before submitting a patch, please open - Preferences → Advanced → General → Config Editor, - find the key mail.content_disposition_type, and set its value to - 1. Without this setting, Thunderbird sends your attachment using - Content-Disposition: inline rather than Content-Disposition: - attachment. Apple Mail gamely displays such a file inline, making it - difficult to work with for reviewers using that program.

+

When sending a patch to a mailing list, it is a good idea to send it as an + attachment to the message, not embedded into the text of the + message. This ensures that your mailer will not mangle the patch when it + sends it (e.g. by making whitespace changes or by wrapping lines).

+ +

For Thunderbird users: Before submitting a patch, please open + Preferences → Advanced → General → Config Editor, + find the key mail.content_disposition_type, and set its value to + 1. Without this setting, Thunderbird sends your attachment using + Content-Disposition: inline rather than Content-Disposition: + attachment. Apple Mail gamely displays such a file inline, making it + difficult to work with for reviewers using that program.

Code Reviews
-

LLVM has a code review policy. Code review is one way to increase the - quality of software. We generally follow these policies:

-
    -
  1. All developers are required to have significant changes reviewed - before they are committed to the repository.
    2. -
  2. Code reviews are conducted by email, usually on the llvm-commits - list.
    3. -
  3. Code can be reviewed either before it is committed or after. We expect - major changes to be reviewed before being committed, but smaller - changes (or changes where the developer owns the component) can be - reviewed after commit.
    4. -
  4. The developer responsible for a code change is also responsible for - making all necessary review-related changes.
    5. -
  5. Code review can be an iterative process, which continues until the patch - is ready to be committed.
    6. -
- -

Developers should participate in code reviews as both reviewers and - reviewees. If someone is kind enough to review your code, you should - return the favor for someone else. Note that anyone is welcome to review - and give feedback on a patch, but only people with Subversion write access - can approve it.

+

LLVM has a code review policy. Code review is one way to increase the quality + of software. We generally follow these policies:

+
    +
  1. All developers are required to have significant changes reviewed before + they are committed to the repository.
    2. + +
  2. Code reviews are conducted by email, usually on the llvm-commits + list.
    3. + +
  3. Code can be reviewed either before it is committed or after. We expect + major changes to be reviewed before being committed, but smaller changes + (or changes where the developer owns the component) can be reviewed after + commit.
    4. + +
  4. The developer responsible for a code change is also responsible for making + all necessary review-related changes.
    5. + +
  5. Code review can be an iterative process, which continues until the patch + is ready to be committed.
    6. +
+ +

Developers should participate in code reviews as both reviewers and + reviewees. If someone is kind enough to review your code, you should return + the favor for someone else. Note that anyone is welcome to review and give + feedback on a patch, but only people with Subversion write access can approve + it.

Code Owners
-

The LLVM Project relies on two features of its process to maintain rapid - development in addition to the high quality of its source base: the - combination of code review plus post-commit review for trusted maintainers. - Having both is a great way for the project to take advantage of the fact - that most people do the right thing most of the time, and only commit - patches without pre-commit review when they are confident they are - right.

+

The LLVM Project relies on two features of its process to maintain rapid + development in addition to the high quality of its source base: the + combination of code review plus post-commit review for trusted maintainers. + Having both is a great way for the project to take advantage of the fact that + most people do the right thing most of the time, and only commit patches + without pre-commit review when they are confident they are right.

-

The trick to this is that the project has to guarantee that all patches - that are committed are reviewed after they go in: you don't want everyone - to assume someone else will review it, allowing the patch to go unreviewed. - To solve this problem, we have a notion of an 'owner' for a piece of the - code. The sole responsibility of a code owner is to ensure that a commit - to their area of the code is appropriately reviewed, either by themself or - by someone else. The current code owners are:

+

The trick to this is that the project has to guarantee that all patches that + are committed are reviewed after they go in: you don't want everyone to + assume someone else will review it, allowing the patch to go unreviewed. To + solve this problem, we have a notion of an 'owner' for a piece of the code. + The sole responsibility of a code owner is to ensure that a commit to their + area of the code is appropriately reviewed, either by themself or by someone + else. The current code owners are:

-
    -
  1. Anton Korobeynikov: Exception handling, debug information, and - Windows codegen.
    2. -
  2. Duncan Sands: llvm-gcc 4.2.
    3. -
  3. Evan Cheng: Code generator and all targets.
    4. -
  4. Chris Lattner: Everything else.
    5. -
+
    +
  1. Anton Korobeynikov: Exception handling, debug information, and + Windows codegen.
    2. + +
  2. Duncan Sands: llvm-gcc 4.2.
    3. + +
  3. Evan Cheng: Code generator and all targets.
    4. + +
  4. Chris Lattner: Everything else.
    5. +
-

Note that code ownership is completely different than reviewers: anyone can - review a piece of code, and we welcome code review from anyone who is - interested. Code owners are the "last line of defense" to guarantee that - all patches that are committed are actually reviewed.

- -

Being a code owner is a somewhat unglamorous position, but it is incredibly - important for the ongoing success of the project. Because people get busy, - interests change, and unexpected things happen, code ownership is purely - opt-in, and anyone can choose to resign their "title" at any time. For now, - we do not have an official policy on how one gets elected to be a code - owner. -

+

Note that code ownership is completely different than reviewers: anyone can + review a piece of code, and we welcome code review from anyone who is + interested. Code owners are the "last line of defense" to guarantee that all + patches that are committed are actually reviewed.

+

Being a code owner is a somewhat unglamorous position, but it is incredibly + important for the ongoing success of the project. Because people get busy, + interests change, and unexpected things happen, code ownership is purely + opt-in, and anyone can choose to resign their "title" at any time. For now, + we do not have an official policy on how one gets elected to be a code + owner.

-
Test Cases
-

Developers are required to create test cases for any bugs fixed and any new - features added. Some tips for getting your testcase approved:

-
    -
  1. All feature and regression test cases are added to the - llvm/test directory. The appropriate sub-directory should be - selected (see the Testing Guide for - details).
    2. -
  2. Test cases should be written in - LLVM assembly language unless the - feature or regression being tested requires another language (e.g. the - bug being fixed or feature being implemented is in the llvm-gcc C++ - front-end, in which case it must be written in C++).
    3. -
  3. Test cases, especially for regressions, should be reduced as much as - possible, by bugpoint or - manually. It is unacceptable - to place an entire failing program into llvm/test as this creates - a time-to-test burden on all developers. Please keep them short.
    4. -
+

Developers are required to create test cases for any bugs fixed and any new + features added. Some tips for getting your testcase approved:

+ +
    +
  1. All feature and regression test cases are added to the + llvm/test directory. The appropriate sub-directory should be + selected (see the Testing Guide for + details).
    2. + +
  2. Test cases should be written in LLVM assembly + language unless the feature or regression being tested requires + another language (e.g. the bug being fixed or feature being implemented is + in the llvm-gcc C++ front-end, in which case it must be written in + C++).
    3. + +
  3. Test cases, especially for regressions, should be reduced as much as + possible, by bugpoint or manually. It is + unacceptable to place an entire failing program into llvm/test as + this creates a time-to-test burden on all developers. Please keep + them short.
    4. +
-

Note that llvm/test is designed for regression and small feature tests - only. More extensive test cases (e.g., entire applications, benchmarks, - etc) should be added to the llvm-test test suite. The llvm-test - suite is for coverage (correctness, performance, etc) testing, not feature - or regression testing.

+

Note that llvm/test is designed for regression and small feature tests + only. More extensive test cases (e.g., entire applications, benchmarks, etc) + should be added to the llvm-test test suite. The llvm-test suite is + for coverage (correctness, performance, etc) testing, not feature or + regression testing.

Quality
-

The minimum quality standards that any change must satisfy before being - committed to the main development branch are:

-
    -
  1. Code must adhere to the - LLVM Coding Standards.
    2. -
  2. Code must compile cleanly (no errors, no warnings) on at least one - platform.
    3. -
  3. Bug fixes and new features should include a - testcase so we know if the fix/feature ever regresses in the - future.
    4. -
  4. Code must pass the dejagnu (llvm/test) test suite.
    5. -
  5. The code must not cause regressions on a reasonable subset of llvm-test, - where "reasonable" depends on the contributor's judgement and the scope - of the change (more invasive changes require more testing). A reasonable - subset might be something like - "llvm-test/MultiSource/Benchmarks".
    6. -
-

Additionally, the committer is responsible for addressing any problems - found in the future that the change is responsible for. For example:

- +

The minimum quality standards that any change must satisfy before being + committed to the main development branch are:

+ +
    +
  1. Code must adhere to the LLVM Coding + Standards.
    2. + +
  2. Code must compile cleanly (no errors, no warnings) on at least one + platform.
    3. + +
  3. Bug fixes and new features should include a + testcase so we know if the fix/feature ever regresses in the + future.
    4. + +
  4. Code must pass the dejagnu (llvm/test) test suite.
    5. + +
  5. The code must not cause regressions on a reasonable subset of llvm-test, + where "reasonable" depends on the contributor's judgement and the scope of + the change (more invasive changes require more testing). A reasonable + subset might be something like + "llvm-test/MultiSource/Benchmarks".
    6. +
+ +

Additionally, the committer is responsible for addressing any problems found + in the future that the change is responsible for. For example:

+ + -

We prefer for this to be handled before submission but understand that it - isn't possible to test all of this for every submission. Our nightly - testing - infrastructure normally finds these problems. A good rule of thumb is to - check the nightly testers for regressions the day after your change.

- -

Commits that violate these quality standards (e.g. are very broken) may - be reverted. This is necessary when the change blocks other developers from - making progress. The developer is welcome to re-commit the change after - the problem has been fixed.

+

We prefer for this to be handled before submission but understand that it + isn't possible to test all of this for every submission. Our nightly testing + infrastructure normally finds these problems. A good rule of thumb is to + check the nightly testers for regressions the day after your change.

+ +

Commits that violate these quality standards (e.g. are very broken) may be + reverted. This is necessary when the change blocks other developers from + making progress. The developer is welcome to re-commit the change after the + problem has been fixed.

@@ -278,15 +301,17 @@ Obtaining Commit Access
-

-We grant commit access to contributors with a track record of submitting high -quality patches. If you would like commit access, please send an email to -Chris with the following information:

+

We grant commit access to contributors with a track record of submitting high + quality patches. If you would like commit access, please send an email to + Chris with the following + information:

    -
  1. The user name you want to commit with, e.g. "sabre".
    2. +
  2. The user name you want to commit with, e.g. "hacker".
    3. +
  3. The full name and email address you want message to llvm-commits to come - from, e.g. "Chris Lattner <sabre@nondot.org>".
    4. + from, e.g. "J. Random Hacker <hacker@yoyodyne.com>". +
  4. A "password hash" of the password you want to use, e.g. "2ACR96qjUqsyM". Note that you don't ever tell us what your password is, you just give it to us in an encrypted form. To get this, run "htpasswd" (a utility that @@ -307,135 +332,139 @@ quality patches. If you would like commit access, please send an email to

    If you have recently been granted commit access, these policies apply:

      -
    1. You are granted commit-after-approval to all parts of LLVM. - To get approval, submit a patch to - - llvm-commits. When approved you may commit it yourself.
      2. +
    2. You are granted commit-after-approval to all parts of LLVM. To get + approval, submit a patch to + llvm-commits. + When approved you may commit it yourself.
      3. +
    3. You are allowed to commit patches without approval which you think are - obvious. This is clearly a subjective decision — we simply expect you - to use good judgement. Examples include: fixing build breakage, reverting - obviously broken patches, documentation/comment changes, any other minor - changes.
      4. -
    4. You are allowed to commit patches without approval to those portions - of LLVM that you have contributed or maintain (i.e., have been assigned - responsibility for), with the proviso that such commits must not break the - build. This is a "trust but verify" policy and commits of this nature are - reviewed after they are committed.
      5. -
    5. Multiple violations of these policies or a single egregious violation - may cause commit access to be revoked.
      6. + obvious. This is clearly a subjective decision — we simply expect + you to use good judgement. Examples include: fixing build breakage, + reverting obviously broken patches, documentation/comment changes, any + other minor changes. + +
    6. You are allowed to commit patches without approval to those portions of + LLVM that you have contributed or maintain (i.e., have been assigned + responsibility for), with the proviso that such commits must not break the + build. This is a "trust but verify" policy and commits of this nature are + reviewed after they are committed.
      7. + +
    7. Multiple violations of these policies or a single egregious violation may + cause commit access to be revoked.

    In any case, your changes are still subject to code -review (either before or after they are committed, depending on the nature -of the change). You are encouraged to review other peoples' patches as well, -but you aren't required to.

    - + review (either before or after they are committed, depending on the + nature of the change). You are encouraged to review other peoples' patches + as well, but you aren't required to.

Making a Major Change
-

When a developer begins a major new project with the aim of contributing - it back to LLVM, s/he should inform the community with an email to - the llvmdev - email list, to the extent possible. The reason for this is to: -

    -
  1. keep the community informed about future changes to LLVM,
    2. -
  2. avoid duplication of effort by preventing multiple parties working on - the same thing and not knowing about it, and
    3. -
  3. ensure that any technical issues around the proposed work are - discussed and resolved before any significant work is done.
    4. -
+

When a developer begins a major new project with the aim of contributing it + back to LLVM, s/he should inform the community with an email to + the llvmdev + email list, to the extent possible. The reason for this is to: + +

    +
  1. keep the community informed about future changes to LLVM,
    2. + +
  2. avoid duplication of effort by preventing multiple parties working on the + same thing and not knowing about it, and
    3. + +
  3. ensure that any technical issues around the proposed work are discussed + and resolved before any significant work is done.
    4. +
-

The design of LLVM is carefully controlled to ensure that all the pieces - fit together well and are as consistent as possible. If you plan to make a - major change to the way LLVM works or want to add a major new extension, it - is a good idea to get consensus with the development - community before you start working on it.

+

The design of LLVM is carefully controlled to ensure that all the pieces fit + together well and are as consistent as possible. If you plan to make a major + change to the way LLVM works or want to add a major new extension, it is a + good idea to get consensus with the development community before you start + working on it.

-

Once the design of the new feature is finalized, the work itself should be - done as a series of incremental changes, not as - a long-term development branch.

- +

Once the design of the new feature is finalized, the work itself should be + done as a series of incremental changes, not as a + long-term development branch.

Incremental Development
-

In the LLVM project, we do all significant changes as a series of - incremental patches. We have a strong dislike for huge changes or - long-term development branches. Long-term development branches have a - number of drawbacks:

- -
    -
  1. Branches must have mainline merged into them periodically. If the branch - development and mainline development occur in the same pieces of code, - resolving merge conflicts can take a lot of time.
    2. -
  2. Other people in the community tend to ignore work on branches.
    3. -
  3. Huge changes (produced when a branch is merged back onto mainline) are - extremely difficult to code review.
    4. -
  4. Branches are not routinely tested by our nightly tester - infrastructure.
    5. -
  5. Changes developed as monolithic large changes often don't work until the - entire set of changes is done. Breaking it down into a set of smaller - changes increases the odds that any of the work will be committed to the - main repository.
    6. -
+

In the LLVM project, we do all significant changes as a series of incremental + patches. We have a strong dislike for huge changes or long-term development + branches. Long-term development branches have a number of drawbacks:

+ +
    +
  1. Branches must have mainline merged into them periodically. If the branch + development and mainline development occur in the same pieces of code, + resolving merge conflicts can take a lot of time.
    2. + +
  2. Other people in the community tend to ignore work on branches.
    3. + +
  3. Huge changes (produced when a branch is merged back onto mainline) are + extremely difficult to code review.
    4. + +
  4. Branches are not routinely tested by our nightly tester + infrastructure.
    5. + +
  5. Changes developed as monolithic large changes often don't work until the + entire set of changes is done. Breaking it down into a set of smaller + changes increases the odds that any of the work will be committed to the + main repository.
    6. +
-

- To address these problems, LLVM uses an incremental development style and we - require contributors to follow this practice when making a large/invasive - change. Some tips:

+

To address these problems, LLVM uses an incremental development style and we + require contributors to follow this practice when making a large/invasive + change. Some tips:

+ + - - -

If you are interested in making a large change, and this scares you, please - make sure to first discuss the change/gather - consensus then ask about the best way to go about making - the change.

+

If you are interested in making a large change, and this scares you, please + make sure to first discuss the change/gather consensus + then ask about the best way to go about making the change.

Attribution of Changes
-

We believe in correct attribution of contributions to - their contributors. However, we do not want the source code to be littered - with random attributions "this code written by J Random Guy" (this is noisy - and distracting). In practice, the revision control system keeps a perfect - history of who changed what, and the CREDITS.txt file describes higher-level - contributions. If you commit a patch for someone else, please say "patch - contributed by J Random Guy!" in the commit message.

+

We believe in correct attribution of contributions to their contributors. + However, we do not want the source code to be littered with random + attributions "this code written by J. Random Hacker" (this is noisy and + distracting). In practice, the revision control system keeps a perfect + history of who changed what, and the CREDITS.txt file describes higher-level + contributions. If you commit a patch for someone else, please say "patch + contributed by J. Random Hacker!" in the commit message.

-

Overall, please do not add contributor names to the source code.

+

Overall, please do not add contributor names to the source code.

- -
Copyright, License, and Patents @@ -443,118 +472,113 @@ Changes
-

This section addresses the issues of copyright, license and patents for - the LLVM project. - Currently, the University of Illinois is the LLVM copyright holder and the - terms of its license to LLVM users and developers is the - University of - Illinois/NCSA Open Source License.

+

This section addresses the issues of copyright, license and patents for the + LLVM project. Currently, the University of Illinois is the LLVM copyright + holder and the terms of its license to LLVM users and developers is the + University of + Illinois/NCSA Open Source License.

-

NOTE: This section - deals with legal matters but does not provide legal advice. We are not - lawyers, please seek legal counsel from an attorney.

+

NOTE: This section deals with + legal matters but does not provide legal advice. We are not lawyers, please + seek legal counsel from an attorney.

Copyright
-

-

For consistency and ease of management, the project requires the - copyright for all LLVM software to be held by a single copyright holder: - the University of Illinois (UIUC).

+

For consistency and ease of management, the project requires the copyright + for all LLVM software to be held by a single copyright holder: the University + of Illinois (UIUC).

-

- Although UIUC may eventually reassign the copyright of the software to another - entity (e.g. a dedicated non-profit "LLVM Organization") - the intent for the project is to always have a single entity hold the - copyrights to LLVM at any given time.

- -

We believe that having a single copyright - holder is in the best interests of all developers and users as it greatly - reduces the managerial burden for any kind of administrative or technical - decisions about LLVM. The goal of the LLVM project is to always keep the code - open and licensed under a very liberal license.

+

Although UIUC may eventually reassign the copyright of the software to + another entity (e.g. a dedicated non-profit "LLVM Organization") the intent + for the project is to always have a single entity hold the copyrights to LLVM + at any given time.

+

We believe that having a single copyright holder is in the best interests of + all developers and users as it greatly reduces the managerial burden for any + kind of administrative or technical decisions about LLVM. The goal of the + LLVM project is to always keep the code open and licensed + under a very liberal license.

License
-

We intend to keep LLVM perpetually open source - and to use a liberal open source license. The current license is the - - University of Illinois/NCSA Open Source License, which boils - down to this:

- - -

We believe this fosters the widest adoption of LLVM because it allows - commercial products to be derived from LLVM with few restrictions and - without a requirement for making any derived works also open source (i.e. - LLVM's license is not a "copyleft" license like the GPL). We suggest that you - read the License - if further clarification is needed.

- -

Note that the LLVM Project does distribute llvm-gcc, which is GPL. - This means that anything "linked" into llvm-gcc must itself be compatible - with the GPL, and must be releasable under the terms of the GPL. This implies - that any code linked into llvm-gcc and distributed to others may be subject - to the viral aspects of the GPL (for example, a proprietary code generator - linked into llvm-gcc must be made available under the GPL). This is not a - problem for code already distributed under a more liberal license (like the - UIUC license), and does not affect code generated by llvm-gcc. It may be a - problem if you intend to base commercial development on llvm-gcc without - redistributing your source code.

- -

We have no plans to change the license of LLVM. If you have questions - or comments about the license, please contact the LLVM Oversight Group.

+

We intend to keep LLVM perpetually open source and to use a liberal open + source license. The current license is the + University of + llinois/NCSA Open Source License, which boils down to this:

+ + +

We believe this fosters the widest adoption of LLVM because it allows + commercial products to be derived from LLVM with few restrictions and + without a requirement for making any derived works also open source (i.e. + LLVM's license is not a "copyleft" license like the GPL). We suggest that you + read the License + if further clarification is needed.

+ +

Note that the LLVM Project does distribute llvm-gcc, which is GPL. + This means that anything "linked" into llvm-gcc must itself be compatible + with the GPL, and must be releasable under the terms of the GPL. This + implies that any code linked into llvm-gcc and distributed to others may + be subject to the viral aspects of the GPL (for example, a proprietary + code generator linked into llvm-gcc must be made available under the GPL). + This is not a problem for code already distributed under a more liberal + license (like the UIUC license), and does not affect code generated by + llvm-gcc. It may be a problem if you intend to base commercial development + on llvm-gcc without redistributing your source code.

+ +

We have no plans to change the license of LLVM. If you have questions or + comments about the license, please contact the + LLVM Oversight Group.

Patents
-

To the best of our knowledge, LLVM does not infringe on any patents (we have actually removed code from LLVM in the past that was found to infringe). - Having code in LLVM that infringes on patents would violate an important - goal of the project by making it hard or impossible to reuse the code for + Having code in LLVM that infringes on patents would violate an important goal + of the project by making it hard or impossible to reuse the code for arbitrary purposes (including commercial use).

When contributing code, we expect contributors to notify us of any potential - for patent-related trouble with their changes. If you or your employer - own the rights to a - patent and would like to contribute code to LLVM that relies on it, we - require that - the copyright owner sign an agreement that allows any other user of LLVM to - freely use your patent. Please contact the oversight group for more + for patent-related trouble with their changes. If you or your employer own + the rights to a patent and would like to contribute code to LLVM that relies + on it, we require that the copyright owner sign an agreement that allows any + other user of LLVM to freely use your patent. Please contact + the oversight group for more details.

-
Developer Agreements
-

With regards to the LLVM copyright and licensing, developers agree to - assign their copyrights to UIUC for any contribution made so that - the entire software base can be managed by a single copyright holder. This - implies that any contributions can be licensed under the license that the - project uses.

+

With regards to the LLVM copyright and licensing, developers agree to assign + their copyrights to UIUC for any contribution made so that the entire + software base can be managed by a single copyright holder. This implies that + any contributions can be licensed under the license that the project + uses.

-

When contributing code, you also affirm that you are legally entitled to - grant this copyright, personally or on behalf of your employer. If the code - belongs to some other entity, please raise this issue with the oversight - group before the code is committed.

+

When contributing code, you also affirm that you are legally entitled to + grant this copyright, personally or on behalf of your employer. If the code + belongs to some other entity, please raise this issue with the oversight + group before the code is committed.