On Fri, 6 Sep 2019 at 20:53, Alex Bennée <alex.ben...@linaro.org> wrote: > Markus Armbruster <arm...@redhat.com> writes: > > > Please advise why TCG plugins don't undermine the GPL. Any proposal to > > add a plugin interface needs to do that. > > I'm not sure what we can say about this apart from "ask your lawyer".
I suspect the underlying confusion here is "the term 'plugin' has a very wide scope and you and Markus are probably not on the same page about what this API/ABI is actually doing". Specifically, this is not the 'plugin ABI that lets you write device models out of tree' that is sometimes mooted, and the ABI does not (unless it's changed since I last looked) expose arbitrary bits of QEMU internals to the plugin or let plugins make calls to random QEMU functions. It's a very limited scope ABI that allows QEMU users to write code that can do useful introspection on what running guest code is doing without having to modify QEMU itself in non-sustainable non-upstreamable ways. [If it doesn't have that kind of protection against misuse then we should add it.] More generally, your cover letter really needs to be much more descriptive about what we're trying to do here, and what the purpose, limitations, etc are here. If you say "plugins" without giving any detail then you're going to trigger a lot of (reasonable) reactions from people who associate that word with a much more generalized "provide arbitrary bits of QEMU functionality as 3rd-party blobs" concept... thanks -- PMM
