qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] Better support for dma_addr_t variables


From: Andreas Färber
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] Better support for dma_addr_t variables
Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2012 10:53:10 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120312 Thunderbird/11.0

Am 03.04.2012 02:51, schrieb David Gibson:
> On Mon, Apr 02, 2012 at 09:49:12AM +0200, Andreas Färber wrote:
>> Am 31.03.2012 10:50, schrieb David Gibson:
>>> On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 11:34:25AM +0200, Andreas Färber wrote:
>>>> Am 30.03.2012 11:32, schrieb Andreas Färber:
>>>>> Am 27.03.2012 04:43, schrieb David Gibson:
>>>>>> diff --git a/hw/qdev-dma.h b/hw/qdev-dma.h
>>>>>> new file mode 100644
>>>>>> index 0000000..e407771
>>>>>> --- /dev/null
>>>>>> +++ b/hw/qdev-dma.h
>>>>>> @@ -0,0 +1,4 @@
>>>>>> +#include "qdev-addr.h"
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +#define DEFINE_PROP_DMAADDR(_n, _s, _f, _d)                             
>>>>>>   \
>>>>>> +    DEFINE_PROP_TADDR(_n, _s, _f, _d)
>>>>>
>>>>> Is a new header just for this really needed? It's not being used in this
>>>>> patch, so its necessity is hard to judge. ;)
>>>>
>>>> Additionally it's missing a license notice.
>>>
>>> Just like qdev-addr.h.  And qdev.h for that matter.
>>>
>>> You seriously want a license notice for two lines of trivial macro?
>>
>> Yes, the issue here is under what license the file is. It's a new file,
>> so in lack of a license statement is it under GPLv2 because QEMU as a
>> whole currently is?  Thus a header explicitly saying that it's under
>> GPLv2+ (or BSD or MIT/X11 or ...) would be appreciated to avoid further
>> complications. Compare our GPLv2+ relicensing page:
>>
>> http://wiki.qemu.org/Relicensing
> 
> It's 4 trivial lines.  Well under the copyrightability threshold even
> by the paranoid estimates of IBM Legal.

Tell that to your IBM colleague. We had an argument about 1 line of
trivial code replacement (not even new code) that kept us from
relicensing target-unicore32/helper.c just recently.
This is not me who's being paranoid about lines of code, really. I've
even heard that header files may not even be the subject of licenses at
all in some legislations. I'm just picky and sometimes spot the odd sock
from afar. ;)

Andreas

-- 
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imendörffer; HRB 16746 AG Nürnberg



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]