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

[Markus Armbruster]

Ping^2!

Markus Armbruster <address@hidden> writes:

> Ping?
>
> Markus Armbruster <address@hidden> writes:
>
>> [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?