From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:40609) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UFRzA-0001sH-6h for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 12 Mar 2013 12:23:36 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UFRz5-0007EJ-22 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 12 Mar 2013 12:23:32 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:11759) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UFRz4-0007E7-RA for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 12 Mar 2013 12:23:27 -0400 Message-ID: <513F5649.4030200@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2013 10:22:33 -0600 From: Eric Blake MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1363000996-13221-1-git-send-email-xiawenc@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1363000996-13221-2-git-send-email-xiawenc@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <513E1934.4030908@redhat.com> <513EB6B3.9050609@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <513F5485.7060908@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <513F5485.7060908@redhat.com> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="----enig2UILXVQKJIJOMVIKJGDTW" Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH V9 01/14] block: move bdrv_snapshot_find() to block/snapshot.c List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: kwolf@redhat.com, stefanha@gmail.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, lcapitulino@redhat.com, pbonzini@redhat.com, Wenchao Xia , armbru@redhat.com This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) ------enig2UILXVQKJIJOMVIKJGDTW Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 03/12/2013 10:15 AM, Eric Blake wrote: > As far as I can tell, there is nothing wrong with leaving the file as > BSD licensed instead of trying to insist that it be LGPL. The block > layer will still be [L]GPL because of other files linked together, but > there is nothing inherently wrong with linking a BSD file into an [L]GP= L > product. In other words, if you are okay with keeping the existing > looser BSD license on this file only, it still won't change the license= > of the overall block layer, and it would save you the hassle of trackin= g > down earlier authors to ask for a relicense. Another alternative is to have two licenses covering appropriate portions of the file. For example, aio-win32.c has two licenses: a GPL2-only license for older history, and a GPLv2+ license for all new changes. In your case, you might be able to write a license that states that contents of code copied from other files is BSD, but all new contributions are LGPLv2+. But again, this is something where I suggest you get an official answer from a maintainer, and not just opinions from a random reviewer, regarding what approach you should take to licensing your code motion. --=20 Eric Blake eblake redhat com +1-919-301-3266 Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org ------enig2UILXVQKJIJOMVIKJGDTW Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.13 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Public key at http://people.redhat.com/eblake/eblake.gpg Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJRP1ZJAAoJEKeha0olJ0NqAvUIAIFLfAG2d/dlVCoh0glACyWs TvWJREQ2lCwjih3cjrN8DPdn4hEF2Xs5gRO8pdsFvkP9OsI6ZpoTvqyqpwUibkP0 FUTwrtQZ9XnzOmiTyzqc+oefy/EPg1Nxm3kO1zKcEQU5RJuEqvIDhWxdqOLa0SY0 RjHj/Vy7yFFpxH6QXtx3YnyyDNOpTEp5xkUxo9dlOuXHTAWksx11GPlhXJCQlLFd LL9+u0yBXnZYINxnVp0I8qwLsVoEDU11l70W8wXzYMK/Dhst0QXglKqvsVjqJNR9 ddyc6B05bzeKdSajCOC+cs/GG4E3Wy1wzVPI0I2BUqxkQcTSZg2o4ZyYLvjObiM= =FW// -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------enig2UILXVQKJIJOMVIKJGDTW--