Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH RFC 2/3] qapi script: add support of event

[Markus Armbruster]

[Licensing problem, cc: Anthony]

Kevin Wolf <address@hidden> writes:

> Am 13.12.2013 um 14:31 hat Eric Blake geschrieben:
>> On 11/12/2013 06:44 PM, Wenchao Xia wrote:
>> > +++ b/scripts/qapi-event.py
>> > @@ -0,0 +1,355 @@
>> > +#
>> > +# QAPI event generator
>> > +#
>> > +# Copyright IBM, Corp. 2013
>> > +#
>> > +# Authors:
>> > +#  Wenchao Xia <address@hidden>
>> > +#
>> > +# This work is licensed under the terms of the GNU GPLv2.
>> 
>> Can you please use GPLv2+ (that is, add the "or later" clause)?  We
>> already have GPLv2-only code, but I don't want to increase the size of
>> that unfortunate license choice.
>
> In fact, it's even worse:
>
> +# This work is licensed under the terms of the GNU GPLv2.
> +# See the COPYING.LIB file in the top-level directory.
>
> These two lines contradict each other, COPYING.LIB contains the
> LGPL 2.1. The same bad license header is in the other QAPI generator
> scripts, so it's only copy&paste here.

Specifically:

    File                        Commit
    scripts/qapi-commands.py    c17d9908
    scripts/qapi-visit.py       fb3182ce
    scripts/qapi-types.py       06d64c62
    scripts/qapi.py             0f923be2

All four from Michael Roth via Luiz.

> This doesn't make things easier, because if things are copied, the
> license of the source must be respected. And it seems rather dubious to
> me what this license actually is. If it's GPLv2-only, we can't just
> change it in the new copy.

IANAL, and I wouldn't dare to judge which of the two conflicting license
claims takes precedence.  Possibly neither, and then the files might
technically not be distributable.

Anyway, this mess needs to be addressed.  Michael, what was your
*intended* license?

If it wasn't GPLv2+, then why?

Do we need formal ACKs from all contributors to fix the licensing
comment in these four files?