From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:57331) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RJD2C-0003aS-RB for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 26 Oct 2011 19:37:25 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RJD2B-0006eZ-KU for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 26 Oct 2011 19:37:24 -0400 Received: from mail-yw0-f45.google.com ([209.85.213.45]:61316) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RJD2B-0006eU-FD for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 26 Oct 2011 19:37:23 -0400 Received: by ywb3 with SMTP id 3so2482574ywb.4 for ; Wed, 26 Oct 2011 16:37:22 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4EA899AF.4020208@codemonkey.ws> Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2011 18:37:19 -0500 From: Anthony Liguori MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20111026224338.GB19496@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <20111026224338.GB19496@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] An opinion on copyright-notice-less qemu files List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Richard Fontana Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org Hi Richard, Thanks for posting this! On 10/26/2011 05:43 PM, Richard Fontana wrote: > Hi qemu developers, > > WARNING: (1) I am not your lawyer; (2) this is not legal advice; (3) > this is a long post which you will probably find extremely boring > unless you happen to be a licensing geek, which I suspect is not true > of most if not all of you. > > My colleague Paolo Bonzini was discussing with me the subject of what > the qemu project should do (if anything) about files in qemu that have > no copyright/license notice, in connection with the recent qemu-devel > subthread on "GPLv3 troubles". In a sense the underlying issue is what > the legal status of such files is. > > Paolo correctly identified four possibilities (I am here paraphrasing > how Paolo put them): > > 1) Assume nothing about the file - therefore, to deal with the GPLv3 > compatibility issue, ask all authors for permission to treat as GPLv2+ > (GPLv2 or later). > > 2) Because qemu has a LICENSE file (which, importantly, I am assuming > has been in place more or less from the get-go) This is only sort of correct. QEMU has been around since about 2003. There has been a LICENSE file for all of it's significant history. But for a long time period, QEMU contained no GPL code out side linux-user and LGPL code in libcpu. The device model was strictly X11 licensed. The old LICENSE file stated: +The following points clarify the QEMU licenses: + +1) The QEMU virtual CPU core library (libqemu.a) and the QEMU PC + system emulator are released under the GNU Lesser General Public + License. + +2) The Linux user mode QEMU emulator is released under the GNU General + Public License. + +3) The QEMU Accelerator Module is a proprietary product. It is + available without charge. Commercial use of the QEMU Accelerator + Module is allowed. + + Redistribution of the QEMU Accelerator Module: any person or + organisation wishing to distribute it, for example on a CD or as a + binary or source package, must have an explicit authorization from + the author. + + The QEMU Accelerator Module is available without any express or + implied warranty. In no event will the author be held liable for + any damages arising from the use of this software. + +4) QEMU is a trademark of Fabrice Bellard. Around 2007, a decision was made to allow GPL code in the system emulator. At that point in time, the LICENSE text was clarified to it's current content (more or less). A number of the pre-2007 files lack copyrights and where created before the "QEMU is overall licensed as GPL" text was added. I don't think this necessarily changes your interpretation significantly but I thought its important to make this clarification at least. Regards, Anthony Liguori