From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:56003) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TaXWk-0003Ab-6U for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 19 Nov 2012 15:01:11 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TaXWi-0006PQ-WE for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 19 Nov 2012 15:01:06 -0500 Received: from fe02x03-cgp.akado.ru ([77.232.31.165]:55334 helo=akado.ru) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TaXWi-0006PE-P1 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 19 Nov 2012 15:01:04 -0500 Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 00:00:51 +0400 (MSK) From: malc In-Reply-To: <87obitcr10.fsf@codemonkey.ws> Message-ID: References: <1353343228-24870-1-git-send-email-aliguori@us.ibm.com> <87obitcr10.fsf@codemonkey.ws> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] LICENSE: clarify licensing List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Anthony Liguori Cc: Peter Maydell , qemu-devel@nongnu.org On Mon, 19 Nov 2012, Anthony Liguori wrote: > malc writes: > > > On Mon, 19 Nov 2012, Peter Maydell wrote: > > > >> On 19 November 2012 18:21, malc wrote: > >> > On Mon, 19 Nov 2012, Anthony Liguori wrote: > >> >> +5) Files without explicit licenses fall under the GPL v2. > >> > > >> > I have issue with this, files without licenses are just that files > >> > without licenses. > >> > >> If we believe this (and it seems a logical thing to believe) > >> then QEMU's not distributable until we rewrite or remove or track > >> down all authors for all the files without licenses... > > > > Yes. > > That's ridiculous. > > There has always been a LICENSE file with a catch-all clause going back > to at least 2005. > > If a file doesn't have an explicit LICENSE, it falls under the catch all > clause. > Wishful thinking. -- mailto:av1474@comtv.ru