Avi Kivity <avi@xxxxxxxxxx> 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. Regards, Anthony Liguori > > > -- > error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
