Am 15.03.2013 um 07:23 hat Wenchao Xia geschrieben: > δΊ 2013-3-14 20:53, Kevin Wolf ει: > >Am 14.03.2013 um 13:10 hat Markus Armbruster geschrieben: > >>Kevin Wolf <kw...@redhat.com> writes: > >>>But you have to do it right. This specific patch would introduce a > >>>copyright violation. It's really not that hard to conform to the terms > >>>of the MIT license, but that doesn't mean that you can ignore it. There > >>>is exactly one requirement and it reads like this: > >>> > >>> The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be > >>> included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software. > >> > >>That's why I pointed to resources and examples on how to do it properly. > >> > >>>(I'm still waiting for a patch to blockdev.c, for which you did it > >>>wrong, by the way) > >> > >>Oops, that one fell through the cracks. Patch coming. > > > >Thanks. > > > >>>>Of course, the stronger license still has to be compatible with GPLv2, > >>>>so we can accept the result into QEMU. > >>>> > >>>>If a subsystem has additional requirements on licenses, its maintainers > >>>>will explain them to you. For what it's worth, substantial parts of the > >>>>block layer are already GPLv2+. > >>> > >>>What parts exactly? As long as there are plans for a libqblock and as > >>>long as it doesn't seem completely impossible to have it under LGPL, I > >>>will ask to use either MIT or LGPL for block layer code (this doesn't > >>>apply to qemu-only code that isn't used in the tools - in this sense, > >>>things like blockdev.c are not part of the block layer) > >> > >>$ git-grep -lw GPL block block* > >>block-migration.c > >>block/blkverify.c > >>block/gluster.c > >>block/linux-aio.c > >>block/raw-aio.h > >>block/rbd.c > >>block/sheepdog.c > >>blockdev-nbd.c > >>blockdev.c > > > >Luckily, none of these are really critical for a libqblock library, even > >though they would be nice to have. > > > >If we can't license such a library as LGPL, we would lose the most > >important potential user, which is libvirt. In which case I probably > >wouldn't want to bother with providing a library at all. > > > >Kevin > > > As the discuss, I feel a direct copy of the license is the > easiest way, the original one is a good enough MIT license, if > my understanding is correct. > One more question: should the date be changed to 2003-2013 in > new file? > > /* > * QEMU System Emulator > * > * Copyright (c) 2003-2008 Fabrice Bellard > .....
Probably not that important, but I would leave it as it is. Kevin
