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

[Wenchao Xia]

于 2014/1/13 18:08, Markus Armbruster 写道:
> 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?
> 
  I used GPLv2+ in my new files of v2, but not sure about other files.
Michael, do you think other scripts should be changed either?