From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:43783) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1V5LUI-0005Rc-Fa for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 02 Aug 2013 15:58:17 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1V5LUA-0003Jo-Rt for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 02 Aug 2013 15:58:10 -0400 Received: from mail-ob0-f171.google.com ([209.85.214.171]:35952) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1V5IhL-0004nv-VO for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 02 Aug 2013 12:59:28 -0400 Received: by mail-ob0-f171.google.com with SMTP id tb18so1622602obb.30 for ; Fri, 02 Aug 2013 09:59:26 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2013 11:59:24 -0500 From: Rob Landley In-Reply-To: <51F89E47.4000500@weilnetz.de> (from sw@weilnetz.de on Wed Jul 31 00:19:03 2013) Message-Id: <1375462764.8422.3@driftwood> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; DelSp=Yes; Format=Flowed Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Licensing question List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Stefan Weil Cc: Erik de Castro Lopo , qemu-devel@nongnu.org On 07/31/2013 12:19:03 AM, Stefan Weil wrote: > Am 31.07.2013 03:50, schrieb Erik de Castro Lopo: > > Hi all, > > > > I have a patch I would like to submit and I am currently running it =20 > past > > my employer's legal department. The legal department has identified =20 > 10 > > different licenses in the Qemu codebase and has asked about the two =20 > files > > I am modifying: > > > > linux-user/syscall.c > > linux-user/syscall_defs.h > > > > For the first its easy as it is clearly marked as GPLv2+. The =20 > second is > > unmarked. Is there some blanket statement somewhere that all files =20 > that > > are not explicitly marked are under say GPLv2+? > > > > Cheers, > > Erik >=20 > No, there is no such statement. >=20 > There is an agreement that files with GPL should be GPLv2+ > (not only GPLv2), but files may also use other free licenses. >=20 > In file LICENSE, it is said that QEMU as a whole is released > under the GNU General Public License. Which, if you don't specify, could mean GPLv1. > Some files are copied from Linux and therefore must use > the Linux license (usually GPLv2). >=20 > syscall_defs.h might be a copy from Linux (=3D> GPLv2). > If not, the default rule from LICENSE could be applied (=3D> GPL). Some directories, such as TCG, have their own LICENSE files. These are =20 generally BSD-style license which are donor-compatible (but not =20 receiver-compatible) with GPLv2 or later. (If "you are obligated to include this license text verbatim, but it =20 does not actually apply to the file" is an acceptable definition of =20 "compatible", but that's a legal argument nobody's made in court yet so =20 I'm sure you're fine. Nor has anybody recently brought up whether "the =20 Software" you're obligated to include it in is just source versions or =20 requires the license text to be in the binary; Android does it to be =20 safe, most others don't bother.) Rob (Personally I look back at the days when my Commodore 64 came bundled =20 with a "Disk Bonus Pack" of public domain software mostly written by =20 Jim Butterfield, and going "why did we stop doing that again? Because =20 awaiting hot coffee lawsuits was worse than awaiting patent troll =20 lawsuits?")=