Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] introduce a dynamic library to expose qemu block API

[Stefan Weil <sw@weilnetz.de>]

Am 13.07.2012 13:33, schrieb Paolo Bonzini:
> Il 13/07/2012 11:51, Paolo Bonzini ha scritto:
>> Il 13/07/2012 11:16, Stefan Hajnoczi ha scritto:
>>>> "Working around the QEMU block layer license" is not a goal per se,
>>>> especially because you haven't a) assessed _what_ is the GPL code that
>>>> the library would use; b) told us why the library should not be under
>>>> the GPL.
>>>>
>>>> Please design first according to the functionality you want to
>>>> implement, then think about the implementation.
>>>
>>> Licensing is one headache but the real challenge is that the QEMU block
>>> layer relies on the QEMU main loop and a bunch of other architecture.
>>
>> It doesn't really, not on Windows which has no AIO for example.  That's
>> why I suggested:
>>
>> - assessing what code is GPL and what are the dependencies on it
>
> So I tried trimming down the list of files needed to compile
> qemu tools, and here is a list:
>
> Easy to relicense to LGPLv2+:
> block/raw.c                     none (GPLv2+: Red Hat, IBM)
> error.c                         LGPLv2 (Red Hat, IBM, Stefan Weil)

I only added an include statement and don't mind
changing the license for error.c to LGPLv2+.

>
> iov.c                           GPLv2 (Red Hat, SuSE/Hannes Reinecke, Michael Tokarev)
> module.c                        GPLv2 (Red Hat, IBM, Blue Swirl)
> qemu-error.c                    GPLv2+ (Red Hat, Blue Swirl, IBM)
> trace/control.c                 GPLv2 (Lluis Vilanova)
> trace/default.c                 GPLv2 (Lluis Vilanova)
>
> (I added some people to Cc.  Lluis and Michael, can you also look at
> http://wiki.qemu.org/Relicensing if you're willing to relicense
> your past contributions from GPLv2 to GPLv2+?.  Blue Swirl said
> he'd accept any other GPLv2 or GPLv3 compatible license, which
> should include LGPLv2+).
>
> Harder to relicense to LGPLv2+:
> block/vdi.c                     GPLv2+

Indeed, that one is harder. Most of the code is from me,
and I need a good reason why the license should be changed.

Of course the dynamic library can also be compiled without
VDI support.

Regards,
Stefan W.