Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: QEMU license problem (was [PATCH v3] Drop --whole-archive and static libraries)

[Anthony Liguori]

On 03/07/2010 11:32 AM, Andreas Färber wrote:
> Am 07.03.2010 um 17:47 schrieb Juan Quintela:
>
> > Stefan Weil <address@hidden> wrote:
> > > Removing libqemu.a was technically ok, but throws a license problem:
> > >
> > > "In particular, the QEMU virtual CPU core library (libqemu.a) is
> > > released under the GNU Lesser General Public License."
> > >
> > > Without libqemu.a, this part of QEMU's license no longer works.
> > >
> > > I think the best solution would be to add a rule for libqemu.a
> > > which allows users to build this static library (make libqemu.a).
> > >
> > > libqemu.a is also still needed for tests/qruncom.
> >
> > I noticed it also.  Not sure how to go here.  Create libqemu.a even if
> > it is not used?
> >
> >
> > From LICENSE:
> >  In particular, the QEMU virtual CPU core library (libqemu.a) is
> >  released under the GNU Lesser General Public License.
>
> We've had a handful of people inquire about LGPL licensing on this 
> list, getting no answer: They complained that libqemu.a contained 
> GPL'ed code and none of you cared, so that would seem a moot point and 
> we should rather fix the licensing passage.

What we need to do is audit the code base for any file that doesn't 
carry an explicit copyright notice, and have the author(s) add explicit 
copyright/license statements to it.  This top level file is not a valid 
copyright statement IMHO in particular because it deals with things like 
"libqemu.a" which is poorly defined.

My understanding of LICENSE is that it is purely an explanation, not a 
licensing statement.  It was added by Fabrice and it covers code in the 
tree that was there before he added it that he didn't hold the copyright 
on so it's not a very strong statement.

It was his desire that libqemu.a be LGPL, that does not mean that it 
actually is...

Regards,

Anthony Liguori