Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 4/4] kvm: i386: Add classic PCI device assignment

[Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>]

On 09/05/2012 06:41 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com> writes:
> 
>> On 09/05/2012 12:00 AM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Why? The way this is being submitted I don't see why we should treat
>>>> Jan's patch any different from a patch by IBM or Samsung where we've
>>>> asked folks to fix the license to comply with what I thought was our new
>>>> policy (it does not even contain a from-x-on-GPLv2+ notice).
>>> 
>>> Asking is one thing.  Requiring is another.
>>> 
>>> I would prefer that people submitted GPLv2+, but I don't think it should
>>> be a hard requirement.  It means, among other things, that we cannot
>>> accept most code that originates from the Linux kernel.
>>
>> We could extend this to "require unless there is a reason to grant an
>> exception" if we wanted to (not saying I know whether we want to or
>> not).
> 
> I don't want QEMU to be GPLv3.  I don't like the terms of the GPLv3.
> 
> I don't mind GPLv2+, if people want to share code from QEMU in GPLv3
> projects, GPLv2+ enables that.
> 
> But if new code is coming in and happens to be under GPLv2, that just
> means that the contribution cannot be used outside of QEMU in a GPLv3
> project.  That's fine and that's a decision for the submitter to make.

Makes sense.

-- 
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function