On 7 January 2015 at 11:04, Paolo Bonzini <pbonz...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > 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.
You said # All Red Hat contributions (at least Avi, Juan, me; don't know about rth) # are available under GPLv2+; also other authors agreed on it. For this # particular license, # Acked-by: Paolo Bonzini <pbonz...@redhat.com> and Juan said: # As said by paolo, any contribution by me is under GPLv2+ O:-) which I took to mean that the RH contribs were GPLv2+, not SF2a. >> 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. Anyway, we can make the future-changes license sf2a regardless of what license the RH contribs in the past are under (we have the non-SF2a BSD contribs as well so the license of the whole file is never going to be a single simple thing). -- PMM
