[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Qemu-devel] Licensing question
From: |
Paolo Bonzini |
Subject: |
Re: [Qemu-devel] Licensing question |
Date: |
Wed, 31 Jul 2013 08:20:46 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130625 Thunderbird/17.0.7 |
Il 31/07/2013 07:45, Erik de Castro Lopo ha scritto:
> Stefan Weil wrote:
>
>> No, there is no such statement.
>>
>> There is an agreement that files with GPL should be GPLv2+
>> (not only GPLv2), but files may also use other free licenses.
>>
>> In file LICENSE, it is said that QEMU as a whole is released
>> under the GNU General Public License.
>>
>> Some files are copied from Linux and therefore must use
>> the Linux license (usually GPLv2).
>>
>> syscall_defs.h might be a copy from Linux (=> GPLv2).
>> If not, the default rule from LICENSE could be applied (=> GPL).
>
> Thanks Stefan.
>
> The file does not seem to come from the linux kernel and google
> found a bunch of other files with the same name, but they either
> seemed to be un-related files (eg one from OpenBSD) or to be
> dervied from this file in Qemu.
>
> That means the file is under the default license for Qemu. The
> LICENSE file simply says "GNU General Public License" without
> specifying which version of that license. Does this mean GPLv2,
> GPLv2+, GPL3 or GPLv3+?
Theoretically, this means GPLv1+ (from GPLv2 paragraph 9: "If the
Program does not specify a version number of this License, you may
choose any version ever published by the Free Software Foundation").
However:
1) no one uses GPLv1 anymore;
2) the copy of the GPL included with QEMU is v2
So the practical meaning is GPLv2+ and we should clarify it. I just
sent two patches to do this.
Paolo
> Sorry about these annoying questions, but lawyers tend to be
> sticklers for these minor details.
>
> Cheer,
> Erik
>