Re: [Qemu-ppc] [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 4/4] kvm: i386: Add classic PCI device assignment

[Alexander Graf]

On 05.09.2012, at 15:38, Blue Swirl wrote:

> On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 7:22 PM, Anthony Liguori <address@hidden> wrote:
>> Blue Swirl <address@hidden> writes:
>> 
>>> On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 3:41 PM, Anthony Liguori <address@hidden> wrote:
>>>> Avi Kivity <address@hidden> writes:
>>>> 
>>>>> On 09/05/2012 12:00 AM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Why? The way this is being submitted I don't see why we should treat
>>>>>>> Jan's patch any different from a patch by IBM or Samsung where we've
>>>>>>> asked folks to fix the license to comply with what I thought was our new
>>>>>>> policy (it does not even contain a from-x-on-GPLv2+ notice).
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Asking is one thing.  Requiring is another.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I would prefer that people submitted GPLv2+, but I don't think it should
>>>>>> be a hard requirement.  It means, among other things, that we cannot
>>>>>> accept most code that originates from the Linux kernel.
>>>>> 
>>>>> We could extend this to "require unless there is a reason to grant an
>>>>> exception" if we wanted to (not saying I know whether we want to or
>>>>> not).
>>>> 
>>>> I don't want QEMU to be GPLv3.  I don't like the terms of the GPLv3.
>>>> 
>>>> I don't mind GPLv2+, if people want to share code from QEMU in GPLv3
>>>> projects, GPLv2+ enables that.
>>> 
>>> The advantage of 100% GPLv2+ (or other GPLv3 compatible) would be that
>>> QEMU could share code from GPLv3 projects, specifically latest
>>> binutils. Reinventing a disassembler for ever growing x86 assembly is
>>> no fun.
>> 
>> But we can't share code with Linux (like for virtio).
> 
> It's a tradeoff between reimplementing disassembler without using
> binutils vs. reimplementing virtio without using Linux. Both have
> their problems and both are growing areas. Disassembler is a bit
> smaller and the basic function does not ever change.
> 
>> 
>> Yes, the GPLv3 sucks and FSF screwed up massively not making it v2
>> compatible.
> 
> I sort of agree. They had their reasons, of course. Too bad binutils
> licensing is fully controlled by FSF, for us it would be enough if
> they had some sort of dual licensing scheme (GPLv3 + BSD for example)
> in place.

What do the BSD guys do here? They want to have a disassembler too that works 
across all different sorts of architectures, no?


Alex