| Message ID | 1474635086-10942-1-git-send-email-felipe@nutanix.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
On 23 September 2016 at 13:51, Felipe Franciosi <felipe@nutanix.com> wrote: > As discussed on the list [1], having a comment stating that this file > is "public domain" is arguably wrong and not legally binding. By > removing this statement from the header, the file is under the > project-wide GPLv2+ license. > > [1] http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2016-09/msg06151.html > > Signed-off-by: Felipe Franciosi <felipe@nutanix.com> > --- > include/qemu/compiler.h | 2 -- > 1 file changed, 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/include/qemu/compiler.h b/include/qemu/compiler.h > index 338d3a6..9d6d09b 100644 > --- a/include/qemu/compiler.h > +++ b/include/qemu/compiler.h > @@ -1,5 +1,3 @@ > -/* public domain */ > - > #ifndef COMPILER_H > #define COMPILER_H Can we have a comment specifically saying what license it is under, please? Something like /* compiler.h: macros to abstract away compiler specifics * * This work is licensed under the terms of the GNU GPL, version 2 or later. * See the COPYING file in the top-level directory. */ thanks -- PMM
> On 23 Sep 2016, at 14:24, Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org> wrote: > > On 23 September 2016 at 13:51, Felipe Franciosi <felipe@nutanix.com> wrote: >> As discussed on the list [1], having a comment stating that this file >> is "public domain" is arguably wrong and not legally binding. By >> removing this statement from the header, the file is under the >> project-wide GPLv2+ license. >> >> [1] http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2016-09/msg06151.html >> >> Signed-off-by: Felipe Franciosi <felipe@nutanix.com> >> --- >> include/qemu/compiler.h | 2 -- >> 1 file changed, 2 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/include/qemu/compiler.h b/include/qemu/compiler.h >> index 338d3a6..9d6d09b 100644 >> --- a/include/qemu/compiler.h >> +++ b/include/qemu/compiler.h >> @@ -1,5 +1,3 @@ >> -/* public domain */ >> - >> #ifndef COMPILER_H >> #define COMPILER_H > > Can we have a comment specifically saying what license it is under, > please? Something like > > /* compiler.h: macros to abstract away compiler specifics > * > * This work is licensed under the terms of the GNU GPL, version 2 or later. > * See the COPYING file in the top-level directory. > */ I'm not against that, but the consensus seems to be that what's currently in LICENSE is clear enough: http://git.qemu.org/?p=qemu.git;a=blob_plain;f=LICENSE;hb=HEAD 2) ... Source files with no licensing information are released under the GNU General Public License, version 2 or (at your option) any later version. Thanks, Felipe > > thanks > -- PMM
On 23 September 2016 at 14:37, Felipe Franciosi <felipe@nutanix.com> wrote: > >> On 23 Sep 2016, at 14:24, Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org> wrote: >> >> On 23 September 2016 at 13:51, Felipe Franciosi <felipe@nutanix.com> wrote: >>> As discussed on the list [1], having a comment stating that this file >>> is "public domain" is arguably wrong and not legally binding. By >>> removing this statement from the header, the file is under the >>> project-wide GPLv2+ license. >>> >>> [1] http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2016-09/msg06151.html >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Felipe Franciosi <felipe@nutanix.com> >>> --- >>> include/qemu/compiler.h | 2 -- >>> 1 file changed, 2 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/include/qemu/compiler.h b/include/qemu/compiler.h >>> index 338d3a6..9d6d09b 100644 >>> --- a/include/qemu/compiler.h >>> +++ b/include/qemu/compiler.h >>> @@ -1,5 +1,3 @@ >>> -/* public domain */ >>> - >>> #ifndef COMPILER_H >>> #define COMPILER_H >> >> Can we have a comment specifically saying what license it is under, >> please? Something like >> >> /* compiler.h: macros to abstract away compiler specifics >> * >> * This work is licensed under the terms of the GNU GPL, version 2 or later. >> * See the COPYING file in the top-level directory. >> */ > > I'm not against that, but the consensus seems to be that what's currently in LICENSE is clear enough: > http://git.qemu.org/?p=qemu.git;a=blob_plain;f=LICENSE;hb=HEAD > > 2) ... Source files with no licensing information > are released under the GNU General Public License, version 2 or (at your > option) any later version. That clause is intended to deal with random leftover files which don't have an explicit statement for some reason (usually historical), not as a justification for increasing the number of files without licensing info. In an ideal world all our files would have a header comment giving the licensing info and copyright details. thanks -- PMM
On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 01:37:18PM +0000, Felipe Franciosi wrote: > > > On 23 Sep 2016, at 14:24, Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org> wrote: > > > > On 23 September 2016 at 13:51, Felipe Franciosi <felipe@nutanix.com> wrote: > >> As discussed on the list [1], having a comment stating that this file > >> is "public domain" is arguably wrong and not legally binding. By > >> removing this statement from the header, the file is under the > >> project-wide GPLv2+ license. > >> > >> [1] http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2016-09/msg06151.html > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Felipe Franciosi <felipe@nutanix.com> > >> --- > >> include/qemu/compiler.h | 2 -- > >> 1 file changed, 2 deletions(-) > >> > >> diff --git a/include/qemu/compiler.h b/include/qemu/compiler.h > >> index 338d3a6..9d6d09b 100644 > >> --- a/include/qemu/compiler.h > >> +++ b/include/qemu/compiler.h > >> @@ -1,5 +1,3 @@ > >> -/* public domain */ > >> - > >> #ifndef COMPILER_H > >> #define COMPILER_H > > > > Can we have a comment specifically saying what license it is under, > > please? Something like > > > > /* compiler.h: macros to abstract away compiler specifics > > * > > * This work is licensed under the terms of the GNU GPL, version 2 or later. > > * See the COPYING file in the top-level directory. > > */ > > I'm not against that, but the consensus seems to be that what's currently in LICENSE is clear enough: > http://git.qemu.org/?p=qemu.git;a=blob_plain;f=LICENSE;hb=HEAD > > 2) ... Source files with no licensing information > are released under the GNU General Public License, version 2 or (at your > option) any later version. That is just a catch all to deal with bad source files. Best practice is to always have an explicit header in every single file, otherwise when someone copies a file from your project into another project, the implicit license info gets lost. Regards, Daniel
diff --git a/include/qemu/compiler.h b/include/qemu/compiler.h index 338d3a6..9d6d09b 100644 --- a/include/qemu/compiler.h +++ b/include/qemu/compiler.h @@ -1,5 +1,3 @@ -/* public domain */ - #ifndef COMPILER_H #define COMPILER_H
As discussed on the list [1], having a comment stating that this file is "public domain" is arguably wrong and not legally binding. By removing this statement from the header, the file is under the project-wide GPLv2+ license. [1] http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2016-09/msg06151.html Signed-off-by: Felipe Franciosi <felipe@nutanix.com> --- include/qemu/compiler.h | 2 -- 1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)