Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 0/6] relicense QEMU softfloat from 2b to to 2a

[Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>]

On 07/01/2015 17:23, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 7 January 2015 at 11:04, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 07/01/2015 11:34, Peter Maydell wrote:
>>> The thing is that after all these relicensings we end up with a
>>> file with a mix of licenses in it. So for somebody actually
>>> using the file the controlling license is GPLv2+. (In particular
>>> all the RedHat contributions are GPLv2+, not SoftFloat-2a...)
>>
>> Actually, all four of us (I and Avi and Juan and Luiz) acked the change,
>> so Red Hat contributions are SoftFloat-2a.
> 
> You said
> # All Red Hat contributions (at least Avi, Juan, me; don't know about rth)
> # are available under GPLv2+; also other authors agreed on it.  For this
> # particular license,
> # Acked-by: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
> 
> and Juan said:
> # As said by paolo,  any contribution by me is under GPLv2+ O:-)
> 
> which I took to mean that the RH contribs were GPLv2+, not SF2a.

I was not counting rth, because I don't know what he did on company time
and what he did on his own, and he's not on the virt team too.

rth and Avi agreed on SoftFloat-2a license separately.

Juan was the only one to reply to my message above, and his reply
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2013-04/msg05849.html is
somewhat contradictory; he mentions GPLv2 but his explicit Acked-by was
below my own Acked-by "for this particular license".  I took that as a
SoftFloat-2a ack too when I reviewed the commits and threads this morning.

But...

> Anyway, we can make the future-changes license sf2a regardless
> of what license the RH contribs in the past are under (we have
> the non-SF2a BSD contribs as well so the license of the whole
> file is never going to be a single simple thing).

... this is true anyway.

Paolo