From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1E2qmP-0004AE-4k
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 10 Aug 2005 09:38:01 -0400
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1E2qmI-00047Z-7f
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 10 Aug 2005 09:37:54 -0400
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1E2qmG-0003y6-9M
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 10 Aug 2005 09:37:52 -0400
Received: from [65.74.133.11] (helo=mail.codesourcery.com)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp
	(TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA:24) (Exim 4.34) id 1E2qeV-00011w-Dm
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 10 Aug 2005 09:29:51 -0400
From: Paul Brook <paul@codesourcery.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Binary package and the kqemu support.
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2005 14:15:09 +0100
References: <200508091224.18758.Piotr_Roszatycki@netia.net.pl>
	<200508091702.39938.paul@codesourcery.com>
	<20050810125638.GB22753@mail.shareable.org>
In-Reply-To: <20050810125638.GB22753@mail.shareable.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200508101415.10247.paul@codesourcery.com>
Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org

> Also, if he is distributing binaries where part of the binary is
> LGPL'd or GPL'd code where the _copyright is held by other people_
> (i.e. contributors), then you can make a case that if he's
> distributing kqemu-enabled binaries of qemu (that nobody else is able
> to legally reproduce), he's infringing the contributor's copyright.

That is the case.

If you look at the licences the dissassembly parts are (C) Free Software 
Foundation and licenced under the GPL, so the whole should be made available 
under those terms.

> But if he's only distributed binaries which are compiled from _his_
> LGPL'd code and _his_ closed source code - well, he can simply do
> that, and the binaries come under whatever binary license he's using.

This is not the case.

Paul