Contents

Talk:LLDB (debugger)

This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Computing Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

NCSA license is non-copyleft?[edit]

The article states that the license is "non-copyleft". Is that correct ?

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#NCSA says: "This license is based on the terms of the Expat and modified BSD licenses. It is a lax, permissive non-copyleft free software license, compatible with the GNU GPL."

TraxPlayer (talk) 07:38, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's non-copyleft. As the LLDB project's home page says, "All of the code in the LLDB project is available under the standard LLVM License, an open source "BSD-style" license." As the license linked to by that quote says:

All of the code in LLVM is available under the University of Illinois/NCSA Open Source License, which boils down to this:

• You can freely distribute LLVM.
• You must retain the copyright notice if you redistribute LLVM.
• Binaries derived from LLVM must reproduce the copyright notice (e.g. in an included readme file).
• You can’t use our names to promote your LLVM derived products.
• There’s no warranty on LLVM at all.

which doesn't include any form of copyleft, and, right after it, they say "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." Reading the linked license also reveals no copyleft clauses.

That's why the GNU project list it as a "non-copyleft free software license" - because that's what it is. Guy Harris (talk) 10:07, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]