[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] introduce a dynamic library to expose qemu block

From: Stefan Weil
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] introduce a dynamic library to expose qemu block API
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2012 19:07:23 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:13.0) Gecko/20120615 Thunderbird/13.0.1

Am 13.07.2012 13:33, schrieb Paolo Bonzini:
Il 13/07/2012 11:51, Paolo Bonzini ha scritto:
Il 13/07/2012 11:16, Stefan Hajnoczi ha scritto:
"Working around the QEMU block layer license" is not a goal per se,
especially because you haven't a) assessed _what_ is the GPL code that
the library would use; b) told us why the library should not be under
the GPL.

Please design first according to the functionality you want to
implement, then think about the implementation.

Licensing is one headache but the real challenge is that the QEMU block
layer relies on the QEMU main loop and a bunch of other architecture.

It doesn't really, not on Windows which has no AIO for example.  That's
why I suggested:

- assessing what code is GPL and what are the dependencies on it

So I tried trimming down the list of files needed to compile
qemu tools, and here is a list:

Easy to relicense to LGPLv2+:
block/raw.c                     none (GPLv2+: Red Hat, IBM)
error.c                         LGPLv2 (Red Hat, IBM, Stefan Weil)

I only added an include statement and don't mind
changing the license for error.c to LGPLv2+.

iov.c                           GPLv2 (Red Hat, SuSE/Hannes Reinecke, Michael 
module.c                        GPLv2 (Red Hat, IBM, Blue Swirl)
qemu-error.c                    GPLv2+ (Red Hat, Blue Swirl, IBM)
trace/control.c                 GPLv2 (Lluis Vilanova)
trace/default.c                 GPLv2 (Lluis Vilanova)

(I added some people to Cc.  Lluis and Michael, can you also look at
http://wiki.qemu.org/Relicensing if you're willing to relicense
your past contributions from GPLv2 to GPLv2+?.  Blue Swirl said
he'd accept any other GPLv2 or GPLv3 compatible license, which
should include LGPLv2+).

Harder to relicense to LGPLv2+:
block/vdi.c                     GPLv2+

Indeed, that one is harder. Most of the code is from me,
and I need a good reason why the license should be changed.

Of course the dynamic library can also be compiled without
VDI support.

Stefan W.

reply via email to

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