Paolo Bonzini <pbonz...@redhat.com> writes: >> > >>>I'm guessing you need approval from Jiuxing Liu for this, >> > >>>pls make him ack license change. >> > >>He approves. He doesn't work for IBM anymore. >> > >Does he approve version 2 or version 2 or later? >> > > >> > >> > It doesn't matter - his contributions were made at IBM and he >> > doesn't work for IBM anymore. >> >> It's considered polite not to ignore author's wishes wrt licensing. >> It's best to contact and get the ack if possible. If not, please tell >> the list and we'll consider the options. > > There are three cases: > > - relicensing to something less restrictive, employer agrees on more > liberal license, employee doesn't. The employer's choice wins. There > are certainly RH employees that would prefer v2 and no later version, > but we are still releasing all RH changes as GPLv2+. > > - relicensing to something less restrictive, no employer (or employer > lets the employee choose the license). Here you *must* contact the > employee. > > - relicensing to something compatible but more restrictive (e.g. > BSD -> GPL). No legal obligation to contact the author (his contributions > would still be available on the older license, all you get by contacting > the author is that you can remove the BSD terms from the file), but it > is indeed more polite to do so. > > > I'm pretty sure that IBM cares about licensing, but I don't know what > their global policy is. Surely they didn't do a full grant of their > contributions to GPLv2+ (which RH and a bunch of other people did), > but if _new_ IBM contributions are to be GPLv2+, there is no need to > contact Jiuxing Liu. Anthony?
Guys, we'll fixup the copyright in the next round of patches. I can't talk publicly about our internal policies around copyright assignment and licensing or else I would. Just ignore the copyrights in this series as they are bogus for all intents and purposes. Regards, Anthony Liguori > > Paolo
