From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:44730) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RFrHW-00032w-7c for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 17 Oct 2011 13:47:27 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RFrHQ-0003I3-AJ for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 17 Oct 2011 13:47:22 -0400 Received: from v220110690675601.yourvserver.net ([78.47.199.172]:39764) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RFrHQ-0003Gy-5I for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 17 Oct 2011 13:47:16 -0400 Message-ID: <4E9C69E3.6080501@weilnetz.de> Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 19:46:11 +0200 From: Stefan Weil MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1318213565-3268-1-git-send-email-jcmvbkbc@gmail.com> <1318213565-3268-7-git-send-email-jcmvbkbc@gmail.com> <4E9C0746.3030509@suse.de> <4E9C21C0.5070102@us.ibm.com> <4E9C249D.3080509@redhat.com> <4E9C38F5.2060803@codemonkey.ws> <4E9C5832.908@suse.de> <4E9C5C3E.8030505@codemonkey.ws> In-Reply-To: <4E9C5C3E.8030505@codemonkey.ws> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] GPLv3 troubles List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Anthony Liguori Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Blue Swirl , Max Filippov , Avi Kivity , Paolo Bonzini , =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Andreas_F=E4rber?= Am 17.10.2011 18:47, schrieb Anthony Liguori: > On 10/17/2011 11:30 AM, Andreas F=E4rber wrote: >> Am 17.10.2011 16:17, schrieb Anthony Liguori: >>> On 10/17/2011 07:50 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote: >>>> On 10/17/2011 02:38 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote: >>>>>> Could we please draft some policy on this? This is not a GDB issue= , >>>>>> it's >>>>>> very general. Whether we like it or not, there is GPLv3-licensed=20 >>>>>> code >>>>>> and there will probably be a GPLv4 one day. >>>>> >>>>> I don't see anything wrong with GPLv2 only. While I don't think=20 >>>>> there's >>>>> anything wrong with GPLv3, I think that "or later" is a dangerous=20 >>>>> clause >>>>> to add. >>>> >>>> License fragmentation with respect to the de facto standard toolchai= n >>>> (binutils) >>>> is wrong. >>> >>> Fragmentation with respect to the de factor standard kernel (Linux) i= s >>> wrong. >> >> Tell that to the GNU and FSF people. :) >> >> In my personal opinion, Open Source licenses should preserve our >> freedom, not make us unnecessarily duplicate code. >> >> I'm just asking to not make the situation worse than it is. > > It's not something that any one person can really change. It would=20 > require a very large effort. To give you an idea of the scope, I ran=20 > the following command: > > $ grep GPL *.c hw/*.c | grep -v 'or later' | cut -f1 -d: | sort -u |=20 > while read i; do echo $i; git log --format=3D" %an <%ae>" $i | sort -u= ;=20 > done > > Here's the results. All of these people would have to explicitly SoB=20 > a relicense of that specific file to include a "v2 or later" clause. =20 > In some cases, there's code from Thiemo which cannot be relicensed due=20 > to his untimely passing. So let's start. For any of my contributions, I agree to GPL v2 or later. Later generations should have the possibility to replace GPL v2 by something which matches future requirements. I'd appreciate if no new files were published with GPL v2 only. Stefan W. PS. I no longer use my old email address because Berlios will be closed on 2011-12-31, see http://www.berlios.de/.