On 05.09.2012, at 15:38, Blue Swirl wrote: > On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 7:22 PM, Anthony Liguori <anthony@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Blue Swirl <blauwirbel@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >> >>> On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 3:41 PM, Anthony Liguori <anthony@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> 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. >>> >>> The advantage of 100% GPLv2+ (or other GPLv3 compatible) would be that >>> QEMU could share code from GPLv3 projects, specifically latest >>> binutils. Reinventing a disassembler for ever growing x86 assembly is >>> no fun. >> >> But we can't share code with Linux (like for virtio). > > It's a tradeoff between reimplementing disassembler without using > binutils vs. reimplementing virtio without using Linux. Both have > their problems and both are growing areas. Disassembler is a bit > smaller and the basic function does not ever change. > >> >> Yes, the GPLv3 sucks and FSF screwed up massively not making it v2 >> compatible. > > I sort of agree. They had their reasons, of course. Too bad binutils > licensing is fully controlled by FSF, for us it would be enough if > they had some sort of dual licensing scheme (GPLv3 + BSD for example) > in place. What do the BSD guys do here? They want to have a disassembler too that works across all different sorts of architectures, no? Alex -- 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
