[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] hax-interface: Add BSD license

From: Yu Ning
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] hax-interface: Add BSD license
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2017 17:03:27 +0800
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.4.0

On 11/17/2017 2:00, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 07:47:44AM +0100, Stefan Weil wrote:
Am 16.11.2017 um 07:50 schrieb address@hidden:
From: Yu Ning <address@hidden>

hax-interface.h defines the interface between the HAXM kernel
module and the HAXM QEMU accelerator. The same code can be found in
the following files of the HAXM kernel module:


These files are now open source under the 3-clause BSD license,
whereas hax-interface.h in QEMU uses GPLv2.
Why is this a problem?

I know very little about licenses.  If this is not a problem, I'm happy to just abandon this patch.

Address this inconsistency by adding the BSD license to the QEMU
file, per Stefan Weil's comment on this HAXM pull request:

The existing code on qemu.git don't match the code on the GitHub
repository above exactly, and its copyright history looks hard to

Right. I don't know when the QEMU header (hax-interface.h) first appeared, but I think it's probably a derivative of the HAXM ones, which date back to no later than June 2011.

If we really care about consistency between the two
projects, shouldn't we just delete the existing file and copy the
headers from github.com/intel/haxm directly?

That's a good solution, but not feasible at the moment, because in the HAXM kernel module, a small piece of the interface code currently resides in an internal header (core/include/vm.h). Probably we should clean up the interface headers on the HAXM side, and then push the change to QEMU.

Also, does it even make sense to keep the two licenses in the

I don't know the answer.  If it doesn't make sense, I can either remove the original GPLv2 license, or abandon this patch and later come back with another one implementing the above solution.

reply via email to

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