Apache vs BSD

[SylvainCorlay]

Was there any particular reason to license this under the Apache license?

Since Xeus is BSD-3-Clause and Xeus-cling are BSD-3-Clause, it would add some fluidity between these projects to license xeus-clang-repl BSD-3-Clause as well.

[vgvassilev]

We are not lawyers but our understanding is that Apache 2.0 gives some further guarantee of the companies that use open-source software in patents. That's mostly the reason LLVM went from MIT to Apache2.0 with llvm exceptions. Here is some more information: https://foundation.llvm.org/docs/relicensing/

[SylvainCorlay]

I would be in favor of using BSD-3-Clause so that we can easily move code around between xeus-based kernels that are (for the most part) BSD as well (also as this started as a fork of xeus-cling). (PS: EU is not concerned with Software Patents presumably).

[vgvassilev]

I am still hoping some of the developed facilities to be moved upstream LLVM at some point. What prevents moving code around kernels with the current license?

[SylvainCorlay]

If we include fixes from here in xeus, xeus-cling, we would need to include the Apache license and list out the pieces of code explicitely. I would be in favor of reducing the noise!

Upstream contributions from BSD-3-Clause project to LLVM should not be an issue (and you are already relicensing BSD code in Apache license here).

[vgvassilev]

Yes, indeed. Let us look into this.