From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Kevin Wolf Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] kvm tool: add QCOW verions 1 read/write support Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2011 10:26:15 +0200 Message-ID: <4DA6AFA7.80903@redhat.com> References: <1302722762-30517-1-git-send-email-prasadjoshi124@gmail.com> <4DA6AA2F.2020306@redhat.com> <20110414080748.GB23965@elte.hu> <4DA6AC83.7000601@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Ingo Molnar , Prasad Joshi , kvm@vger.kernel.org, asias.hejun@gmail.com, gorcunov@gmail.com, levinsasha928@gmail.com, stefanha@linux.vnet.ibm.com To: Pekka Enberg Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:56253 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752089Ab1DNIYZ (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Apr 2011 04:24:25 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Am 14.04.2011 10:15, schrieb Pekka Enberg: > * Kevin Wolf wrote: >>>> Also at least your qcow1.c is lacking the copyright header. Please add this, >>>> otherwise you're violating the license. > > Am 14.04.2011 10:07, schrieb Ingo Molnar: >>> AFAICT it's not a copy, it's a reimplementation - and he credited you in the >>> CREDITS file, for providing a reference implementation. But we can credit you >>> to the header as well - Pekka? > > On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 11:12 AM, Kevin Wolf wrote: >> It's actually not my code, but Fabrice's. I compared >> get_cluster_offset() and it looks similar enough to me to qualify as a >> modified copy. > > It's actually me who asked to drop the license banners from the file > and move it to CREDITS. Parasd, mind sending a patch that adds it back > to the files? Heh, I just saw your mail from yesterday. Missed it because I wasn't CCed on v1. The license is pretty clear about it: * The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in * all copies or substantial portions of the Software. You could discuss if it would be enough to copy the license text into CREDITS, but leaving it in the file is the usual and expected way. Anyway, license issues are not my favourite topic, I would rather discuss ways of sharing code instead of creating more unmergeable forks. Don't you feel that it will hurt both sides if you continue this way? Kevin