"That doesn't change the reasons stated in the proposal email. Even if the final legwork was orchestrated by individual contributors, it's clear that the reasons were to appease corporations and not the community at large."

Except it's not, since the community was the one who desired those contributions in the first place.

Seriously. You are going off making a lot of assertions without knowledge, evidence, or data.

Truthfully, if this is how the community you belong to operates, i'm somewhat glad they will no longer use LLVM.

> it's clear that the reasons were to appease corporations and not the community at large.

That's a pretty uncharitable interpretation. The reality is there are companies who want to upstream their changes, but can't given the current license.

It's better for the community as a whole if more people/teams contribute their changes back, and that would be one of the benefits of the relicense.

It seems like you're making a dichotomy between corporations and the community. However corps are a big part of the community! They are leveraging LLVM in many different products, and individuals in the community are frequently paid by various companies to work on LLVM to improve these products.

It is a privilege as a community member to be able to be paid to work on a project like LLVM. I'm so grateful the community has such a healthy relationship with both academia and corporations.

Many community members at the yearly conference mention that they have custom patches that they can't upstream because of licensing issue. Improving this means to me that we can extend the community and make it stronger.