On Mon, 19 Nov 2012, Stefan Weil wrote: > Am 19.11.2012 19:34, schrieb malc: > > On Mon, 19 Nov 2012, Peter Maydell wrote: > > > > > On 19 November 2012 18:21, malc<av1...@comtv.ru> 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 can only be true if those files are older than LICENSE, > or at least older than the commit which added > > "QEMU as a whole is released under the GNU General Public License". (2007) > > Any file or contribution which was added later (with or without a license > clause) > cannot invalidate this general license, so QEMU remains distributable. >
I think you are mistaken, this just clarifies the redistributability of the QEMU as a whole, given that it uses some code which has strong claims (GPL) it as a whole must adhere to these. If it contains code that has no license it just can not use that code, nothing GPL can do about it. > Nevertheless fixing files without explicit license is desirable, > of course. > > Stefan > -- mailto:av1...@comtv.ru
