From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:44066) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RNoRd-0007X5-TM for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 08 Nov 2011 11:22:46 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RNoRV-00037X-Ne for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 08 Nov 2011 11:22:41 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:40858) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RNoRV-000378-FX for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 08 Nov 2011 11:22:33 -0500 Message-ID: <4EB95743.7070702@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2011 17:22:27 +0100 From: Paolo Bonzini MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1320687529-29955-1-git-send-email-quintela@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] vmstate: Add copyrights for all cpus List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Peter Maydell Cc: Anthony Liguori , qemu-devel@nongnu.org On 11/08/2011 04:39 PM, Peter Maydell wrote: >>> >> + * This work is licensed under the terms of the GNU GPL, version 2. See >>> >> + * the COPYING file in the top-level directory. >> > >> > ... or later please. > Need to be careful here. Marking something previously unmarked as > GPLv2 is pretty clearly OK because the project license is v2 so > the unmarked stuff was contributed either under that or under a > compatible license. Marking as v2+ is on somewhat thinner ice > IMHO and ideally we shouldn't do it without an ack from the > relevant copyright owner. Richard Fontana (who is not our lawyer, but still knows the GPL pretty well) posted a while ago his reasoning as to why it should be safe to consider files without a header to be GPLv2+. Of course this is only as long as they do not contain GPLv2-only code from non-QEMU sources. Paolo