Glauber Costa wrote:
On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 6:57 PM, Andreas FÃrber <andreas.faerber@xxxxxx> wrote:
Am 28.10.2008 um 21:13 schrieb Anthony Liguori:
diff --git a/kvm-all.c b/kvm-all.c
new file mode 100644
@@ -0,0 +1,377 @@
+ * QEMU KVM support
+ * Copyright IBM, Corp. 2008
+ * Authors:
+ * Anthony Liguori <aliguori@xxxxxxxxxx>
+ * This work is licensed under the terms of the GNU GPL, version 2. See
+ * the COPYING file in the top-level directory.
Just wondering - since this is a new file of yours, would it make sense to
use "version 2 or, at your option, any later version" to avoid the recent
binutils GPL compatibility issues in the future?
It's not that easy, because it is not exatly "a new file of yours".
It's obviously derived
Well, kvm-all.c really isn't. There are maybe a few snippets (mainly if
clauses) that came from qemu-kvm but not enough to be considered derived
IMHO. kvm.c on the other hand contains enough that I would think it is
derived (and I preserved the original copyright from qemu-kvm-x86.c).
At any rate, as I said previously, Avi should agree before changing the
license of any of it.
from current kvm code. That said, libkvm.c is version 2, and qemu-kvm.c is v2+.
I'm not sure if there's any legal restriction on the final product
anthony should follow.
Ah, I missed the or-higher part in qemu-kvm.c. I'll update the next
round of patches to reflect that. I don't care either way honestly, I
just copied the copyright from somewhere else.