Re: [PATCH v2 1/5] qemu/qarray.h: introduce QArray

[Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>]

Christian Schoenebeck <qemu_oss@crudebyte.com> writes:

> On Dienstag, 24. August 2021 17:24:50 CEST Christian Schoenebeck wrote:
>> On Dienstag, 24. August 2021 16:45:12 CEST Markus Armbruster wrote:
>> > Christian Schoenebeck <qemu_oss@crudebyte.com> writes:
>> > > On Dienstag, 24. August 2021 10:22:52 CEST Markus Armbruster wrote:
>> > [...]
>> > 
>> > >> Please use GPLv2+ unless you have a compelling reason not to.
>> > >> 
>> > >> [...]
>> > > 
>> > > Is that a requirement?
>> > > 
>> > > It is just my personal license preference. AFAICS there are numerous
>> > > sources in QEMU released under MIT license as well.
>> > 
>> > The licensing situation is a mess.
>> > 
>> > The only hard requirement is "compatible with GPLv2+".  We prefer GPLv2+
>> > for new code, except as detailed in ./LICENSE.  We're stuck with a
>> > sizable body of existing code that is GPLv2 (no +), but decided to put
>> > limits to that madness.  Again, see ./LICENSE for details.
>> > 
>> > I'm asking you to help with limiting the madness by sticking to GPLv2+
>> > whenever possible.
>> 
>> Okay, I see that there is quite a homogenous license structure in Qemu.

Self-inflicted wound.  We should have insisted on GPLv2+.

>> However the MIT license is a very permissive license, so I don't see any
>> conflicts.
>
> s/homogenous/heterogeneous/
>
>> What if I release this file under public domain? That's not even copyleft at
>> all. What that be OK for you?
>
> "Would" that be OK for you?

My preference: GPLv2+ > MIT > public domain.

If you go with anything but GPLv2+, please explain why in your commit
message.  One sentence should suffice, say "MIT license to minimize
license issues when "stealing" this code for other projects."

>> My idea was that people might simply take this header file and use it in
>> other C projects as well. Putting it under GPL might cause conflicts for
>> other projects.