On 07/01/2015 17:23, Peter Maydell wrote: > 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.
I was not counting rth, because I don't know what he did on company time and what he did on his own, and he's not on the virt team too. rth and Avi agreed on SoftFloat-2a license separately. Juan was the only one to reply to my message above, and his reply http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2013-04/msg05849.html is somewhat contradictory; he mentions GPLv2 but his explicit Acked-by was below my own Acked-by "for this particular license". I took that as a SoftFloat-2a ack too when I reviewed the commits and threads this morning. But... > 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). ... this is true anyway. Paolo
