From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:38681) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gtE5e-0004D1-8q for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 11 Feb 2019 11:05:51 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gtE5Q-00052f-FZ for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 11 Feb 2019 11:05:42 -0500 Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2019 17:05:24 +0100 From: Cornelia Huck Message-ID: <20190211170524.4cda16cd.cohuck@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <1906740a-1bea-abc1-6258-9c9f1ed79246@suse.de> References: <1549456893-16589-1-git-send-email-thuth@redhat.com> <20190206135840.60a2a49f.cohuck@redhat.com> <52b3de29-6918-952d-9d91-abdfb6dba25b@vivier.eu> <6de44209-a135-0894-5407-4f6af7a0965e@suse.de> <20190211163102.0a99b023.cohuck@redhat.com> <1906740a-1bea-abc1-6258-9c9f1ed79246@suse.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] s390x: Fix the confusing contributions-after-2012 license statements List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Alexander Graf Cc: Laurent Vivier , Thomas Huth , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, qemu-s390x@nongnu.org, Riku Voipio , Christian Borntraeger On Mon, 11 Feb 2019 17:00:32 +0100 Alexander Graf wrote: > On 02/11/2019 04:31 PM, Cornelia Huck wrote: > > On Mon, 11 Feb 2019 16:24:48 +0100 > > Alexander Graf wrote: > > > >> On 02/06/2019 02:02 PM, Laurent Vivier wrote: > >>> On 06/02/2019 13:58, Cornelia Huck wrote: > >>>> On Wed, 6 Feb 2019 13:41:33 +0100 > >>>> Thomas Huth wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> The license information in these files is rather confusing. The text > >>>>> declares LGPL first, but then says that contributions after 2012 are > >>>>> licensed under the GPL instead. How should the average user who just > >>>>> downloaded the release tarball know which part is now GPL and which > >>>>> is LGPL? > >>>> FWIW, that statement was added in ccb084d3f0ec ("s390: new > >>>> contributions GPLv2 or later"). > >>>> > >>>>> Looking at the text of the LGPL (see COPYING.LIB in the top directory), > >>>>> the license clearly states how this should be done instead: > >>>>> > >>>>> "3. You may opt to apply the terms of the ordinary GNU General Public > >>>>> License instead of this License to a given copy of the Library. To do > >>>>> this, you must alter all the notices that refer to this License, so > >>>>> that they refer to the ordinary GNU General Public License, version 2, > >>>>> instead of to this License." > >>>> Hm. This talks about GPL v2, not GPL v2-or-later... > >>>> > >>>>> Thus let's clean up the confusing statements and use the proper GPL > >>>>> text only. > >>>>> > >>>>> Signed-off-by: Thomas Huth > >>>>> --- > >>>>> linux-user/s390x/target_cpu.h | 19 ++++++++----------- > >>>>> target/s390x/cpu.c | 19 ++++++++----------- > >>>>> target/s390x/cpu.h | 19 ++++++++----------- > >>>>> target/s390x/kvm.c | 19 ++++++++----------- > >>>> BTW: Is the original author of the code still around? > >>> For the linux-user/s390x/target_cpu.h, it seems this code has been pushed by Alex Graf: > >>> > >>> commit 10ec51174ca69a4c3c5149b0b3baaa6ccba66273 > >>> Author: Alexander Graf > >>> Date: Sat Dec 5 12:44:21 2009 +0100 > >>> > >>> S/390 CPU fake emulation > >>> > >>> Because Qemu currently requires a TCG target to exist and there are quite some > >>> useful helpers here to lay the groundwork for out KVM target, let's create a > >>> stub TCG emulation target for S390X CPUs. > >>> > >>> This is required to make tcg happy. The emulation target itself won't work > >>> though. > >>> > >>> Signed-off-by: Alexander Graf > >>> Signed-off-by: Aurelien Jarno > >>> > >>> But the "(c) 2009 Ulrich Hecht" is confusing. > >> Why? Ulrich was the one that started the port, I then cleaned it up, > >> improved it, added system emulation and upstreamed it. > > It's just a bit confusing that Ulrich does not show up in the sign-off > > chain. > > > >> What problem exactly are you trying to solve? > > The confusing license statements? > > > > I thought I'd ask whether the original author had any thoughts; if you > > think this patch is problematic, I can dequeue it again. > > You can always combine LGPL and GPL code and the result becomes GPL > only, so I see little problem? :) That was the conclusion, I think :)