qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC PATCH v0 1/2] gluster: Change licence to GPLv2+


From: Bharata B Rao
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC PATCH v0 1/2] gluster: Change licence to GPLv2+
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2014 14:21:03 +0530
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)

On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 10:30:53AM +0100, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 07:59:55PM +0530, Bharata B Rao wrote:
> > Pipe handling mechanism in gluster driver was based on similar 
> > implementation
> > in RBD driver and hence had GPLv2 and associated copyright information.
> > After changing gluster driver to coroutine based implementation, the pipe
> > handling code no longer exists and hence change gluster driver's licence to
> > GPLv2+ and remove RBD copyrights.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Bharata B Rao <address@hidden>
> > ---
> >  block/gluster.c | 12 ++----------
> >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/block/gluster.c b/block/gluster.c
> > index a009b15..ba56005 100644
> > --- a/block/gluster.c
> > +++ b/block/gluster.c
> > @@ -3,17 +3,9 @@
> >   *
> >   * Copyright (C) 2012 Bharata B Rao <address@hidden>
> >   *
> > - * Pipe handling mechanism in AIO implementation is derived from
> > - * block/rbd.c. Hence,
> > + * This work is licensed under the terms of the GNU GPL, version 2 or 
> > later.
> > + * See the COPYING file in the top-level directory.
> >   *
> > - * Copyright (C) 2010-2011 Christian Brunner <address@hidden>,
> > - *                         Josh Durgin <address@hidden>
> > - *
> > - * This work is licensed under the terms of the GNU GPL, version 2.  See
> > - * the COPYING file in the top-level directory.
> > - *
> > - * Contributions after 2012-01-13 are licensed under the terms of the
> > - * GNU GPL, version 2 or (at your option) any later version.
> >   */
> >  #include <glusterfs/api/glfs.h>
> >  #include "block/block_int.h"
> 
> I looked at git log -p block/gluster.c and this change seems reasonable,
> but due to the nature of license changes:
> 
> If anyone disagrees and has copyright on part of this file, please speak
> now.

Since nobody has said anything till now, Stefan, would you be taking this
in now ?

Regards,
Bharata.




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]