[Qemu-devel] Licensing question

[Qemu-devel] Licensing question

[Erik de Castro Lopo]

Hi all,

I have a patch I would like to submit and I am currently running it past
my employer's legal department. The legal department has identified 10
different licenses in the Qemu codebase and has asked about the two files
I am modifying:

    linux-user/syscall.c
    linux-user/syscall_defs.h

For the first its easy as it is clearly marked as GPLv2+. The second is
unmarked. Is there some blanket statement somewhere that all files that
are not explicitly marked are under say GPLv2+?

Cheers,
Erik
-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Erik de Castro Lopo
http://www.mega-nerd.com/

Re: [Qemu-devel] Licensing question

[Stefan Weil]

Am 31.07.2013 03:50, schrieb Erik de Castro Lopo:
> Hi all,
>
> I have a patch I would like to submit and I am currently running it past
> my employer's legal department. The legal department has identified 10
> different licenses in the Qemu codebase and has asked about the two files
> I am modifying:
>
>     linux-user/syscall.c
>     linux-user/syscall_defs.h
>
> For the first its easy as it is clearly marked as GPLv2+. The second is
> unmarked. Is there some blanket statement somewhere that all files that
> are not explicitly marked are under say GPLv2+?
>
> Cheers,
> Erik

No, there is no such statement.

There is an agreement that files with GPL should be GPLv2+
(not only GPLv2), but files may also use other free licenses.

In file LICENSE, it is said that QEMU as a whole is released
under the GNU General Public License.

Some files are copied from Linux and therefore must use
the Linux license (usually GPLv2).

syscall_defs.h might be a copy from Linux (=> GPLv2).
If not, the default rule from LICENSE could be applied (=> GPL).

Regards,
Stefan

Re: [Qemu-devel] Licensing question

[Erik de Castro Lopo]

Stefan Weil wrote:

> No, there is no such statement.
> 
> There is an agreement that files with GPL should be GPLv2+
> (not only GPLv2), but files may also use other free licenses.
> 
> In file LICENSE, it is said that QEMU as a whole is released
> under the GNU General Public License.
> 
> Some files are copied from Linux and therefore must use
> the Linux license (usually GPLv2).
> 
> syscall_defs.h might be a copy from Linux (=> GPLv2).
> If not, the default rule from LICENSE could be applied (=> GPL).

Thanks Stefan.

The file does not seem to come from the linux kernel and google
found a bunch of other files with the same name, but they either
seemed to be un-related files (eg one from OpenBSD) or to be
dervied from this file in Qemu.

That means the file is under the default license for Qemu. The
LICENSE file simply says "GNU General Public License" without
specifying which version of that license. Does this mean GPLv2,
GPLv2+, GPL3 or GPLv3+?

Sorry about these annoying questions, but lawyers tend to be
sticklers for these minor details.

Cheer,
Erik
-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Erik de Castro Lopo
http://www.mega-nerd.com/

Re: [Qemu-devel] Licensing question

[Paolo Bonzini]

Il 31/07/2013 07:45, Erik de Castro Lopo ha scritto:
> Stefan Weil wrote:
> 
>> No, there is no such statement.
>>
>> There is an agreement that files with GPL should be GPLv2+
>> (not only GPLv2), but files may also use other free licenses.
>>
>> In file LICENSE, it is said that QEMU as a whole is released
>> under the GNU General Public License.
>>
>> Some files are copied from Linux and therefore must use
>> the Linux license (usually GPLv2).
>>
>> syscall_defs.h might be a copy from Linux (=> GPLv2).
>> If not, the default rule from LICENSE could be applied (=> GPL).
> 
> Thanks Stefan.
> 
> The file does not seem to come from the linux kernel and google
> found a bunch of other files with the same name, but they either
> seemed to be un-related files (eg one from OpenBSD) or to be
> dervied from this file in Qemu.
> 
> That means the file is under the default license for Qemu. The
> LICENSE file simply says "GNU General Public License" without
> specifying which version of that license. Does this mean GPLv2,
> GPLv2+, GPL3 or GPLv3+?

Theoretically, this means GPLv1+ (from GPLv2 paragraph 9: "If the
Program does not specify a version number of this License, you may
choose any version ever published by the Free Software Foundation").
However:

1) no one uses GPLv1 anymore;

2) the copy of the GPL included with QEMU is v2

So the practical meaning is GPLv2+ and we should clarify it.  I just
sent two patches to do this.

Paolo

> Sorry about these annoying questions, but lawyers tend to be
> sticklers for these minor details.
> 
> Cheer,
> Erik
> 

Re: [Qemu-devel] Licensing question

[Rob Landley]

On 07/31/2013 12:19:03 AM, Stefan Weil wrote:
> Am 31.07.2013 03:50, schrieb Erik de Castro Lopo:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I have a patch I would like to submit and I am currently running it  
> past
> > my employer's legal department. The legal department has identified  
> 10
> > different licenses in the Qemu codebase and has asked about the two  
> files
> > I am modifying:
> >
> >     linux-user/syscall.c
> >     linux-user/syscall_defs.h
> >
> > For the first its easy as it is clearly marked as GPLv2+. The  
> second is
> > unmarked. Is there some blanket statement somewhere that all files  
> that
> > are not explicitly marked are under say GPLv2+?
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Erik
> 
> No, there is no such statement.
> 
> There is an agreement that files with GPL should be GPLv2+
> (not only GPLv2), but files may also use other free licenses.
> 
> In file LICENSE, it is said that QEMU as a whole is released
> under the GNU General Public License.

Which, if you don't specify, could mean GPLv1.

> Some files are copied from Linux and therefore must use
> the Linux license (usually GPLv2).
> 
> syscall_defs.h might be a copy from Linux (=> GPLv2).
> If not, the default rule from LICENSE could be applied (=> GPL).

Some directories, such as TCG, have their own LICENSE files. These are  
generally BSD-style license which are donor-compatible (but not  
receiver-compatible) with GPLv2 or later.

(If "you are obligated to include this license text verbatim, but it  
does not actually apply to the file" is an acceptable definition of  
"compatible", but that's a legal argument nobody's made in court yet so  
I'm sure you're fine. Nor has anybody recently brought up whether "the  
Software" you're obligated to include it in is just source versions or  
requires the license text to be in the binary; Android does it to be  
safe, most others don't bother.)

Rob

(Personally I look back at the days when my Commodore 64 came bundled  
with a "Disk Bonus Pack" of public domain software mostly written by  
Jim Butterfield, and going "why did we stop doing that again? Because  
awaiting hot coffee lawsuits was worse than awaiting patent troll  
lawsuits?")