Update licensing to MIT AND Apache-2.0 WITH LLVM-exception #717

tgross35 · 2024-10-25T01:28:18Z

Currently, Cargo.toml specifies Apache-2.0 OR MIT, but LICENSE.txt describes MIT OR NCSA. compiler-builtins is derived from LLVM's compiler-rt. LICENSE.txt correctly reflects the state of compiler-rt prior to relicensing on 2019-01-19, during which time software was available for use under either MIT or the University of Illinois NCSA license. After relicensing, however, compiler-rt is available for use only under Apache-2.0 with the LLVM exception; this is not reflected anywhere in the repository.

Update the SPDX license identifier to MIT AND Apache-2.0 WITH LLVM-exception AND (MIT OR Apache-2.0). Each AND portion covers something specific:

MIT: This covers work that is derived from LLVM before the LLVM relicensing (under MIT OR NCSA), as well as the vendored libm components.
Apache-2.0 WITH LLVM-exception: this covers work that is derived from the LLVM repository since after the LLVM relicensing.
MIT OR Apache-2.0: This ensures that any contributions to this repository, in addition to meeting the above required licenses, is also released for use under the Rust-standard Apache-2.0 with no LLVM exception.

See also the parallel license update in rust-lang/libm [1].

Fixes: #307
Closes: #511
Link: https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/channel/335408-foundation/topic/Request.20for.20legal.20team.20input.20on.20crate.20licensing
Link: rust-lang/libm#317 [1]

tgross35 · 2024-10-25T01:37:06Z

One thing I am not certain about here; anyone who contributed to this repository between the 2019-01-19 LLVM relicense and now did so with no mention of Apache-2.0 WITH LLVM-exception being present in this repository. Do we need to get their acknowledgement to license this crate for use under Apache-2.0 WITH LLVM-exception AND MIT?

I think it could be sufficient that any work derived from an Apache-2.0 WITH LLVM-exception source is implicitly made available under that same license, even though there is no mention in this repository, but I am not sure of these technicalities.

beetrees · 2024-10-25T02:14:21Z

I think it could be sufficient that any work derived from an Apache-2.0 WITH LLVM-exception source is implicitly made available under that same license, even though there is no mention in this repository, but I am not sure of these technicalities.

IANAL, but I don't think it works like that. Even with copyleft licenses, any modifications aren't automatically licensed under the same license (with copyleft, not licensing the modifications compatibly just means that you're violating the original license, not that your modifications are automatically correctly licensed).

That said, there's no requirement for changes to Apache-2.0 WITH LLVM-exception code to be licensed identically, so AFAICT any modifications to the LLVM Apache-2.0 WITH LLVM-exception code would be licensed the same as any other original contribution to compiler-builtins.

tgross35 · 2024-10-25T05:00:52Z

IANAL, but I don't think it works like that. Even with copyleft licenses, any modifications aren't automatically licensed under the same license (with copyleft, not licensing the modifications compatibly just means that you're violating the original license, not that your modifications are automatically correctly licensed).

Yeah, I think you are right. I am hoping for some sort of sound way to correct the licensing without needing to get an okay from all contributors since LLVM's relicense (~150) but I'm not sure if that is feasible.

There is some more discussion on the Zulip link asked in the top post if you want to drop in, but this is one question I haven't yet heard back about.

That said, there's no requirement for changes to Apache-2.0 WITH LLVM-exception code to be licensed identically, so AFAICT any modifications to the LLVM Apache-2.0 WITH LLVM-exception code would be licensed the same as any other original contribution to compiler-builtins.

I don't think I follow here - what is the Apache-2.0 WITH LLVM-exception code? AIUI there is none in this repository since it was never part of the license here, even though it should all be under that license.

joshtriplett · 2024-10-25T05:39:31Z

@tgross35 The license updates look correct to me. We also need to make sure we preserve any relevant copyright notices here.

tgross35 · 2024-10-25T05:46:13Z

I don't know of any copyrights that are relevant here. Searching for "copyright" in the LLVM directory only comes up with a few results we don't use https://github.com/search?q=repo%3Allvm%2Fllvm-project+path%3A%2F%5Ecompiler-rt%5C%2F%2F+copyright&type=code and the current license literally says "Copyright [yyyy] [name of copyright owner]"

tgross35 · 2024-10-25T05:46:38Z

LICENSE.txt

+* compiler-builtins is derived from LLVM's compiler-rt (https://llvm.org/).
+  Work derived form compiler-rt prior to 2019-01-19 is usable under the MIT
+  license, with the following copyright:
+
+      Copyright (c) 2009-2016 by the contributors listed in CREDITS.TXT
+
+  The relevant CREDITS.TXT is located at
+  https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/main/compiler-rt/CREDITS.TXT.


@joshtriplett but I did include this to cover the copyright in the old license

(just fixed the form/from typo I noticed here)

While I don't think we have a legal requirement to, we might want to consider reproducing CREDITS.TXT (inlined into LICENSE.txt). It's short.

The one caveat there being that if we start including it, we should update our included version if the upstream version changes and we copy any new code.

I did consider this but it didn't seem like it was ever really used on LLVM's side. The latest update is from two years before compiler-builtins existed, and it had only ever been updated twice before that.

joshtriplett · 2024-10-26T22:29:20Z

Cargo.toml

@@ -2,7 +2,7 @@
 authors = ["Jorge Aparicio <japaricious@gmail.com>"]
 name = "compiler_builtins"
 version = "0.1.135"
-license = "MIT/Apache-2.0"
+license = "Apache-2.0 WITH LLVM-exception AND MIT AND (MIT OR Apache-2.0)"


Suggested change

license = "Apache-2.0 WITH LLVM-exception AND MIT AND (MIT OR Apache-2.0)"

license = "MIT AND Apache-2.0 WITH LLVM-exception AND (MIT OR Apache-2.0)"

(Minor consistency/readability nit, not a blocker.)

Agreed, made this change

joshtriplett · 2024-10-26T22:29:55Z

LICENSE.txt

+compiler-builtins as a whole is available for use under both the MIT license
+and the Apache-2.0 license with the LLVM exception (Apache-2.0 WITH
+LLVM-exception AND MIT).


Suggested change

compiler-builtins as a whole is available for use under both the MIT license

and the Apache-2.0 license with the LLVM exception (Apache-2.0 WITH

LLVM-exception AND MIT).

compiler-builtins as a whole is available for use under both the MIT license

and the Apache-2.0 license with the LLVM exception (`MIT AND Apache-2.0 WITH

LLVM-exception`).

Minor consistency and readability nit. Not a blocker.

joshtriplett

Posted a couple of minor nits, but they're not blockers.

Currently, Cargo.toml specifies Apache-2.0 OR MIT, but LICENSE.txt describes MIT OR NCSA. compiler-builtins is derived from LLVM's compiler-rt. LICENSE.txt correctly reflects the state of compiler-rt prior to relicensing on 2019-01-19, during which time software was available for use under either MIT or the University of Illinois NCSA license. After relicensing, however, compiler-rt is available for use only under Apache-2.0 with the LLVM exception; this is not reflected anywhere in the repository. Update the SPDX license identifier to `MIT AND Apache-2.0 WITH LLVM-exception AND (MIT OR Apache-2.0)`. Each AND portion covers something specific: * Apache-2.0 WITH LLVM-exception: this covers work that is derived from the LLVM repository since after the LLVM relicensing. * MIT: This covers work that is derived from LLVM before the LLVM relicensing (under MIT OR NCSA), as well as the vendored `libm` components. * MIT AND Apache-2.0: This ensures that any contributions to this repository, in addition to meeting the above required licenses, is also released for use under the Rust-standard Apache-2.0 with no LLVM exception. See also the parallel license update in rust-lang/libm [1]. Fixes: rust-lang#307 Closes: rust-lang#511 Link: https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/channel/335408-foundation/topic/Request.20for.20legal.20team.20input.20on.20crate.20licensing Link: rust-lang/libm#317 [1]

This includes: * The license change rust-lang/compiler-builtins#717 * The `libm` submodule update, which also has a license change rust-lang/libm#317 * Re-enabling `math` on i686 UEFI rust-lang/compiler-builtins#715

Update compiler-builtins to 0.1.136 This includes: * The license change rust-lang/compiler-builtins#717 * The `libm` submodule update, which also has a license change rust-lang/libm#317 * Re-enabling `math` on i686 UEFI rust-lang/compiler-builtins#715 Fixes: rust-lang#128533

This includes: * The license change rust-lang/compiler-builtins#717 * The `libm` submodule update, which also has a license change rust-lang/libm#317 * Re-enabling `math` on i686 UEFI rust-lang/compiler-builtins#715

Update compiler-builtins to 0.1.136 This includes: * The license change rust-lang/compiler-builtins#717 * The `libm` submodule update, which also has a license change rust-lang/libm#317 * Re-enabling `math` on i686 UEFI rust-lang/compiler-builtins#715 Fixes: rust-lang/rust#128533

RalfJung · 2024-11-09T15:24:20Z

● MIT AND Apache-2.0: ...

This should be "MIT OR Aapache-2.0", right? You were listing the 3 AND clauses, but the third thing you list does not match the third AND clause.

RalfJung · 2024-11-09T15:33:52Z

LICENSE.txt

+As a contributor, you agree that your code can be used under either the MIT
+license, or the Apache-2.0 license, or the Apache-2.0 license with the LLVM
+exception.


To be clear, this means I agree that you can choose any of these licenses, right? It doesn't mean I as the contributor can choose one of these licenses to make the contributor under? IMO this is not clear enough.

joshtriplett · 2024-11-09T15:58:19Z

@RalfJung Fixed.

tgross35 force-pushed the update-licensing branch from d64750d to 8a25302 Compare October 25, 2024 01:28

tgross35 assigned joshtriplett Oct 25, 2024

tgross35 force-pushed the update-licensing branch from 8a25302 to 42c3b66 Compare October 25, 2024 01:29

tgross35 force-pushed the update-licensing branch from 42c3b66 to efef752 Compare October 25, 2024 01:48

tgross35 commented Oct 25, 2024

View reviewed changes

tgross35 force-pushed the update-licensing branch from efef752 to b961f11 Compare October 25, 2024 05:50

joshtriplett reviewed Oct 26, 2024

View reviewed changes

joshtriplett approved these changes Oct 26, 2024

View reviewed changes

tgross35 force-pushed the update-licensing branch from b961f11 to 752e2a6 Compare October 26, 2024 22:34

tgross35 enabled auto-merge October 26, 2024 22:35

tgross35 force-pushed the update-licensing branch from 752e2a6 to 8646087 Compare October 26, 2024 22:36

tgross35 changed the title ~~Update licensing to Apache-2.0 WITH LLVM-exception AND MIT~~ Update licensing to MIT AND Apache-2.0 WITH LLVM-exception Oct 26, 2024

tgross35 merged commit 300c34c into rust-lang:master Oct 26, 2024
25 checks passed

tgross35 deleted the update-licensing branch October 26, 2024 22:43

This was referenced Oct 26, 2024

Correct SPDX identifier to "MIT OR (Apache-2.0 AND NCSA)" #511

Closed

Crate declares incorrect Apache/MIT license #307

Closed

tgross35 mentioned this pull request Oct 26, 2024

Update compiler-builtins to 0.1.136 rust-lang/rust#132206

Merged

RalfJung reviewed Nov 9, 2024

View reviewed changes

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Update licensing to MIT AND Apache-2.0 WITH LLVM-exception #717

Update licensing to MIT AND Apache-2.0 WITH LLVM-exception #717

tgross35 commented Oct 25, 2024 •

edited by joshtriplett

Loading

tgross35 commented Oct 25, 2024

beetrees commented Oct 25, 2024 •

edited

Loading

tgross35 commented Oct 25, 2024

joshtriplett commented Oct 25, 2024

tgross35 commented Oct 25, 2024

tgross35 Oct 25, 2024 •

edited

Loading

joshtriplett Oct 26, 2024

tgross35 Oct 26, 2024

joshtriplett Oct 26, 2024

tgross35 Oct 26, 2024

joshtriplett Oct 26, 2024

tgross35 Oct 26, 2024

joshtriplett left a comment

RalfJung commented Nov 9, 2024 •

edited

Loading

RalfJung Nov 9, 2024

joshtriplett commented Nov 9, 2024

	license = "Apache-2.0 WITH LLVM-exception AND MIT AND (MIT OR Apache-2.0)"
	license = "MIT AND Apache-2.0 WITH LLVM-exception AND (MIT OR Apache-2.0)"

Update licensing to MIT AND Apache-2.0 WITH LLVM-exception #717

Update licensing to MIT AND Apache-2.0 WITH LLVM-exception #717

Conversation

tgross35 commented Oct 25, 2024 • edited by joshtriplett Loading

tgross35 commented Oct 25, 2024

beetrees commented Oct 25, 2024 • edited Loading

tgross35 commented Oct 25, 2024

joshtriplett commented Oct 25, 2024

tgross35 commented Oct 25, 2024

tgross35 Oct 25, 2024 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

joshtriplett Oct 26, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

tgross35 Oct 26, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

joshtriplett Oct 26, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

tgross35 Oct 26, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

joshtriplett Oct 26, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

tgross35 Oct 26, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

joshtriplett left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

RalfJung commented Nov 9, 2024 • edited Loading

RalfJung Nov 9, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

joshtriplett commented Nov 9, 2024

tgross35 commented Oct 25, 2024 •

edited by joshtriplett

Loading

beetrees commented Oct 25, 2024 •

edited

Loading

tgross35 Oct 25, 2024 •

edited

Loading

RalfJung commented Nov 9, 2024 •

edited

Loading