To others: I presume what the parent comment is complaining about is that companies are legally allowed to modify the llvm source and distribute those binaries without source code.
This is not a bad thing, unless you're an open source zealot.
From the URL above:
> We intend to keep LLVM perpetually open source and to use a liberal open source license.
and
> 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).
http://llvm.org/docs/DeveloperPolicy.html#license
To others: I presume what the parent comment is complaining about is that companies are legally allowed to modify the llvm source and distribute those binaries without source code.
This is not a bad thing, unless you're an open source zealot.
From the URL above:
> We intend to keep LLVM perpetually open source and to use a liberal open source license.
and
> 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).
This is reasonable.