Re: [PATCH v2] Import Linux headers for KVM and vhost

["Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>]

On Tue, May 03, 2011 at 12:59:06PM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> On 05/03/2011 12:55 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> >On 2011-05-03 19:45, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> >>On 05/03/2011 12:30 PM, Peter Maydell wrote:
> >>>On 3 May 2011 17:48, Jan Kiszka<jan.kiszka@siemens.com>   wrote:
> >>>>Kernel headers were automatically imported from current kvm.git,
> >>>>93c016c8c4. Some are not covered by any license and can be considered
> >>>>GPLv2 with user space exception.
> >>>
> >>>Hmm. Can't we just get whoever owns those files to apply a suitable
> >>>copyright and license header to them? Committing files to qemu.git
> >>>which don't have a clear (and clearly stated) copyright/license seems
> >>>like a bad plan to me...
> >>
> >>Which are the headers in question?
> >
> >include/asm-powerpc:	explicit GPLv2
> >include/asm-s390:	explicit GPLv2
> >include/asm/x86:	no license mentioned
> >include/linux/kvm*:	no license mentioned
> >include/linux/vhost:	no license mentioned
> 
> Michael/Avi, can ya'll add copyrights/licenses as appropriate?

All kernel is GPLv2 with userspace exceptions.  The explicit GPLv2
licenses are likely uninitentional.  So I don't really believe licenses
are applicable in headers, we see how this creates confusion.

Just place the kernel COPYING file into the include directory?

> >include/linux/virtio*:	"BSB"
> >
> >The last group already popped up here during a license clearing of the
> >kernel. I contacted Rusty on them and got the answer "Standard 3 clause.
> >  The 4 clause is incompatible with the GPL." That was OK for our
> >purposes, but I nevertheless asked Rusty to push a clarifying sentence
> >to the kernel - unfortunately this did not happen so far.
> 
> Rusty, do you want to put together a patch with the full license or
> should I?
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Anthony Liguori
> 
> >
> >Jan
> >