On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 11:57:10AM +0000, Peter Maydell wrote: > On 26 February 2018 at 10:47, Daniel P. Berrangé <berra...@redhat.com> wrote: > > I accept that MIT is compatible with GPLv2+, so that's not an immediate > > legal > > problem. The issue is that as we add more & more different licenses to QEMU, > > it becomes a maintenance burden to developers, especially when doing code > > refactoring across files. You have to be careful you're not taking a piece > > of GPLv2+ code and copying/moving it into a file that's MIT licensed, as > > that would be non-compliant. We already suffer this problem with our mixture > > of GPLv2-only and GPLv2+ and LGPLv2+ and BSD licensed code. So I'm > > personally > > loathe to see us add yet another license to the mix. > > Unless I'm confused, we already have a lot of MIT-licensed code in the tree, > including much of the block layer, accel/tcg, the audio subsystem. Looking > at vl.c, it was put under the MIT license by Fabrice in 2003, so we've > been living with it as part of our licensing mix for a very long time already.
Eeek, I totally missed that as the top level LICENSE file only mentions GPL and BSD licenses :-( I guess that's a trigger for a patch to improve the text in the LICENSE file to better reflect reality... So I guess you can ignore my comments in this thread about MIT license being different from normal practice in QEMU. Regards, Daniel -- |: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :| |: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :| |: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|
