From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:55435) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SV6cA-0002SD-Nr for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 17 May 2012 15:43:59 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SV6c9-00039J-3Z for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 17 May 2012 15:43:58 -0400 Received: from mail-we0-f173.google.com ([74.125.82.173]:54944) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SV6c8-00038z-QT for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 17 May 2012 15:43:57 -0400 Received: by werf3 with SMTP id f3so1727945wer.4 for ; Thu, 17 May 2012 12:43:54 -0700 (PDT) Sender: Paolo Bonzini Message-ID: <4FB554F5.6080701@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 17 May 2012 21:43:49 +0200 From: Paolo Bonzini MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <4F4E9E31.50903@storagecraft.com> <4F4F8FCD.7010106@redhat.com> <4F4FD1C9.8050006@storagecraft.com> <4F4FD7C7.7030001@mail.berlios.de> <4F4FD9A6.9060308@mail.berlios.de> <4F4FE4AA.20902@codemonkey.ws> <4F4FE6C6.1070302@storagecraft.com> <4F506E92.9080902@redhat.com> <4FB3DE79.9090504@storagecraft.com> <4FB3E86B.7020206@redhat.com> <4FB3FE16.3000608@storagecraft.com> <4FB4C7D8.4010609@redhat.com> <4FB53B00.1090402@storagecraft.com> In-Reply-To: <4FB53B00.1090402@storagecraft.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Add support for new image type List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Kai Meyer Cc: Nate Bushman , Stefan Weil , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Anthony Liguori , Artyom Tarasenko Il 17/05/2012 19:53, Kai Meyer ha scritto: >> Morally it's wrong, but a copyright holder cannot stop you on >> moral grounds. Legally, you should consult a lawyer. > What you say is morally wrong here is a bit ambiguous to me. Do you > mean using modified versions of qemu internally at StorageCraft is > morally wrong? No, it's fine. Internally you can do whatever you want. > Or do you mean that a run-time linking version would not be in > violation of the GPL legally, but it would be morally wrong? I cannot answer about the legal part; it's possible that it's legal but anyway you should listen to a lawyer's opinion and not mine. Anthony explained that, at least for him, it would be morally wrong. Other people's mileage may vary. Paolo