From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1KuNrs-0006kI-NB for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2008 04:54:32 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1KuNrr-0006jw-5z for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2008 04:54:32 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=45674 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1KuNrr-0006jt-15 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2008 04:54:31 -0400 Received: from wf-out-1314.google.com ([209.85.200.169]:45672) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1KuNrq-0003vq-NV for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2008 04:54:30 -0400 Received: by wf-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id 27so1953880wfd.4 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2008 01:54:28 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <761ea48b0810270154x2c7c606es13209e2481471b79@mail.gmail.com> Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2008 10:54:28 +0200 From: "Laurent Desnogues" Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH, RFC] Update disassembler files from latest binutils In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <200810250106.50402.paul@codesourcery.com> Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 9:56 AM, Blue Swirl wrote: > >> GPLv3 is not acceptable for qemu, which contains v2 only code. > > We could update once to binutils 2.17 which is GPL v2+. For Sparc this > would be about OK, since there is just one commit after GPLv3 switch. > But for i386 this would mean missing 30 to 50 commits. I took a quick look at binutils CVS repository: 2.17 released happened in June '06. According to ChangeLog, the switch to GPLv3 occured in July '07: http://sourceware.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/src/opcodes/ChangeLog-2007?rev=1.2&content-type=text/x-cvsweb-markup&cvsroot=src So I *guess* getting source out of CVS from June '07 should be safe license wise, though probably slightly dangerous from a stability point of view. Perhaps Paul can comment on that? Laurent