Re: 8 Dec 05 notes from GCC improvement for Itanium conference call

[Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin dot org>]

On Fri, 2005-12-16 at 12:01 -0800, Chris Lattner wrote:
> On Dec 16, 2005, at 11:47 AM, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, 2005-12-16 at 11:27 -0800, Chris Lattner wrote:
> >> On Dec 16, 2005, at 11:15 AM, Mark K. Smith wrote:
> >>> Additionally to the obstacles to adopt LLVM mentioned by Diego, I
> >>> named usage of C++ (although it has advantages too) and patents.  
> >>> LLVM
> >>> should be checked for usage of compiler patents. Gcc people avoided
> >>> many patents especially from Microsoft. We can not be sure right now
> >>> about LLVM.
> >>
> >> The confusion is basically centered around the distinction between my
> >> PhD research work and LLVM itself.
> >> The thesis work I did at UIUC does relate closely to Steensgaard's
> >> pointer analysis work, which is patented by Microsoft.  However, this
> >> thesis work is not currently used by LLVM, and certainly won't be
> >> incorporated directly into GCC (for obvious patent reasons), so this
> >> isn't an issue with LLVM adoption by GCC.
> >
> However, I am certainly not a lawyer and defer to those who are :).   
> If people would be more comfortable with the code out of the *llvm*  
> distro, I can remove it, just let me know.  In any case, this issue  
> still has nothing to do with GCC integration.

I agree completely on that point.  I don't think we need to be worrying
about the codebase of LLVM in terms of patents and copyright at this
point.

I've scanned it and certainly DSAA and the Steensgaard implementation
were the only thing that popped out at me as being something to worry
about later. 

LLVM has more or less avoided the same patents GCC has.
--Dan