On 02/06/2014 08:54 AM, Michael Matz wrote: > Hi, > > On Thu, 6 Feb 2014, Peter Maydell wrote: > >> On 6 February 2014 13:45, Michael Matz <matz@xxxxxxx> wrote: >>> Hmm, why aren't we simply using the binutils disassembler? It's also >>> (C) by ARM, so there shouldn't be any relicensing problems. And it >>> does support AdvSIMD and system instructions. >> >> It is GPLv3 which is not compatible with GPLv2 which >> QEMU requires. The contribution process for binutils >> involves a copyright assignment which means the FSF >> now have the copyright there, as I understand it. > > The FSF always grants back rights on the contribution to the contributor. > ARM could simply double-license their original contribution of the > disassembler. Is dual licensing always possible given a grant-back? What if the contribution is a derivative of a GPL-3.0 licensed work? Christopher -- Employee of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by the Linux Foundation. _______________________________________________ kvmarm mailing list kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/kvmarm
