On 07/01/2015 11:34, Peter Maydell wrote: > The thing is that after all these relicensings we end up with a > file with a mix of licenses in it. So for somebody actually > using the file the controlling license is GPLv2+. (In particular > all the RedHat contributions are GPLv2+, not SoftFloat-2a...)
Actually, all four of us (I and Avi and Juan and Luiz) acked the change, so Red Hat contributions are SoftFloat-2a. > So it seemed simplest to say 'GPLv2+ for future changes'; but > it wouldn't make any major difference to pick softfloat-2a I guess > (and that is the license covering the bulk of the code so it > does make more sense in some ways). Yes, that was my reasoning. Paolo
