From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Anthony Liguori Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 4/4] kvm: i386: Add classic PCI device assignment Date: Wed, 05 Sep 2012 14:22:46 -0500 Message-ID: <87zk54l1fd.fsf@codemonkey.ws> References: <825e653c9cfe9d8e26185917cbe1f1dd7ae299e2.1346048917.git.jan.kiszka@web.de> <503B62F4.9070500@suse.de> <87k3wjyy0e.fsf@codemonkey.ws> <503E227B.40904@suse.de> <874nndmrjs.fsf@codemonkey.ws> <50476F3E.7000100@redhat.com> <87wr081nq4.fsf@codemonkey.ws> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Avi Kivity , Andreas =?utf-8?Q?F=C3=A4rber?= , kvm@vger.kernel.org, "Michael S. Tsirkin" , Alexey Kardashevskiy , Marcelo Tosatti , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Alex Williamson , Jan Kiszka , qemu-ppc To: Blue Swirl Return-path: Received: from mail-ob0-f174.google.com ([209.85.214.174]:64946 "EHLO mail-ob0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752586Ab2IETWv (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Sep 2012 15:22:51 -0400 Received: by obbuo13 with SMTP id uo13so971341obb.19 for ; Wed, 05 Sep 2012 12:22:50 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Blue Swirl writes: > On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 3:41 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote: >> Avi Kivity writes: >> >>> On 09/05/2012 12:00 AM, Anthony Liguori wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Why? The way this is being submitted I don't see why we should treat >>>>> Jan's patch any different from a patch by IBM or Samsung where we've >>>>> asked folks to fix the license to comply with what I thought was our new >>>>> policy (it does not even contain a from-x-on-GPLv2+ notice). >>>> >>>> Asking is one thing. Requiring is another. >>>> >>>> I would prefer that people submitted GPLv2+, but I don't think it should >>>> be a hard requirement. It means, among other things, that we cannot >>>> accept most code that originates from the Linux kernel. >>> >>> We could extend this to "require unless there is a reason to grant an >>> exception" if we wanted to (not saying I know whether we want to or >>> not). >> >> I don't want QEMU to be GPLv3. I don't like the terms of the GPLv3. >> >> I don't mind GPLv2+, if people want to share code from QEMU in GPLv3 >> projects, GPLv2+ enables that. > > The advantage of 100% GPLv2+ (or other GPLv3 compatible) would be that > QEMU could share code from GPLv3 projects, specifically latest > binutils. Reinventing a disassembler for ever growing x86 assembly is > no fun. But we can't share code with Linux (like for virtio). Yes, the GPLv3 sucks and FSF screwed up massively not making it v2 compatible. Regards, Anthony Liguori > >> >> But if new code is coming in and happens to be under GPLv2, that just >> means that the contribution cannot be used outside of QEMU in a GPLv3 >> project. That's fine and that's a decision for the submitter to make. > > This policy means that we are locked in with GPLv2. > >> >> Regards, >> >> Anthony Liguori >> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:60334) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1T9LBg-00012S-2Y for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 05 Sep 2012 15:23:01 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1T9LBb-0001g3-QZ for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 05 Sep 2012 15:22:55 -0400 Received: from mail-ob0-f173.google.com ([209.85.214.173]:41501) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1T9LBb-0001fp-L2 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 05 Sep 2012 15:22:51 -0400 Received: by obbta14 with SMTP id ta14so822294obb.4 for ; Wed, 05 Sep 2012 12:22:50 -0700 (PDT) From: Anthony Liguori In-Reply-To: References: <825e653c9cfe9d8e26185917cbe1f1dd7ae299e2.1346048917.git.jan.kiszka@web.de> <503B62F4.9070500@suse.de> <87k3wjyy0e.fsf@codemonkey.ws> <503E227B.40904@suse.de> <874nndmrjs.fsf@codemonkey.ws> <50476F3E.7000100@redhat.com> <87wr081nq4.fsf@codemonkey.ws> Date: Wed, 05 Sep 2012 14:22:46 -0500 Message-ID: <87zk54l1fd.fsf@codemonkey.ws> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 4/4] kvm: i386: Add classic PCI device assignment List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Blue Swirl Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org, "Michael S. Tsirkin" , Alexey Kardashevskiy , Marcelo Tosatti , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Alex Williamson , Jan Kiszka , Avi Kivity , qemu-ppc , Andreas =?utf-8?Q?F=C3=A4rber?= Blue Swirl writes: > On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 3:41 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote: >> Avi Kivity writes: >> >>> On 09/05/2012 12:00 AM, Anthony Liguori wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Why? The way this is being submitted I don't see why we should treat >>>>> Jan's patch any different from a patch by IBM or Samsung where we've >>>>> asked folks to fix the license to comply with what I thought was our new >>>>> policy (it does not even contain a from-x-on-GPLv2+ notice). >>>> >>>> Asking is one thing. Requiring is another. >>>> >>>> I would prefer that people submitted GPLv2+, but I don't think it should >>>> be a hard requirement. It means, among other things, that we cannot >>>> accept most code that originates from the Linux kernel. >>> >>> We could extend this to "require unless there is a reason to grant an >>> exception" if we wanted to (not saying I know whether we want to or >>> not). >> >> I don't want QEMU to be GPLv3. I don't like the terms of the GPLv3. >> >> I don't mind GPLv2+, if people want to share code from QEMU in GPLv3 >> projects, GPLv2+ enables that. > > The advantage of 100% GPLv2+ (or other GPLv3 compatible) would be that > QEMU could share code from GPLv3 projects, specifically latest > binutils. Reinventing a disassembler for ever growing x86 assembly is > no fun. But we can't share code with Linux (like for virtio). Yes, the GPLv3 sucks and FSF screwed up massively not making it v2 compatible. Regards, Anthony Liguori > >> >> But if new code is coming in and happens to be under GPLv2, that just >> means that the contribution cannot be used outside of QEMU in a GPLv3 >> project. That's fine and that's a decision for the submitter to make. > > This policy means that we are locked in with GPLv2. > >> >> Regards, >> >> Anthony Liguori >> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function