From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:44998) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eqGJi-0000du-IH for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 26 Feb 2018 05:47:35 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eqGJf-0003k6-EU for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 26 Feb 2018 05:47:34 -0500 Received: from mx3-rdu2.redhat.com ([66.187.233.73]:39204 helo=mx1.redhat.com) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eqGJf-0003jq-83 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 26 Feb 2018 05:47:31 -0500 Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2018 10:47:23 +0000 From: Daniel =?utf-8?B?UC4gQmVycmFuZ8Op?= Message-ID: <20180226104723.GH14196@redhat.com> Reply-To: Daniel =?utf-8?B?UC4gQmVycmFuZ8Op?= References: <1519344729-73482-1-git-send-email-mjc@sifive.com> <20180223101032.GA31076@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v6 00/23] RISC-V QEMU Port Submission List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Michael Clark Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Peter Maydell , Bastian Koppelmann , Palmer Dabbelt , Sagar Karandikar , RISC-V Patches On Sat, Feb 24, 2018 at 09:05:49AM +1300, Michael Clark wrote: > Dear Daniel, >=20 > We've had this discussion on a recent pull request where some code was > going to be copied directly from hw/arm/virt.c to hw/riscv/virt.c and w= e > have subsequently relicensed the recipient file as GPLv2+. This code ha= s > not yet been incorporated into the port. Besides naming conventions and= use > of some common APIs, however the logic in hw/riscv/virt.c is original w= ork. > Try diffing them. I wrote the device tree code from scratch and we have= a > unique memory map, and the other functions are dervied from other RISC-= V > machines which are MIT licensed. >=20 > - https://github.com/riscv/riscv-qemu/pull/109 >=20 > In any case, SiFive are happy to license their contributions as GPLv2+. > We'll need to get the main contributors to agree to re-license to GPLv2= + or > fall back to having GPLv2+ prefix the MIT license, as MIT is compatible > with GPLv2+. Stefan O'Rear has commented that he is happy for his code = to > be GPLv2+ and so is SiFive, but we'll need to get confirmation from Sag= ar, > one of the main port contributors, and potentially the whole list of > contributors to do complete due diligence on re-licensing. i.e. if we w= ant > to eradicate MIT license from the code-base. >=20 > SiFive have made substantial changes to all of the non-GPLv2+ files in = the > port, and SiFive can license their contributions as GPLv2+ which would > allow us to prefix all files in hw/riscv with GPLv2+. The only issue is > that we must get approval from contributors to completely remove the MI= T > license, as the original contributors licensed their code under that > license, as is the case for all of Fabrice's original code and many oth= er > parts of the code base e.g. GPEX hw/pci-host/gpex.c. >=20 > SiFive have made substantial changes to all files in the RISC-V port, s= o we > would be empowered to at least prefix the MIT license with GPLv2+. >=20 > Is that acceptable? the MIT terms are compatible with GPLv2+ as MIT is = a > "permissive-license". I accept that MIT is compatible with GPLv2+, so that's not an immediate l= egal problem. The issue is that as we add more & more different licenses to QE= MU, it becomes a maintenance burden to developers, especially when doing code refactoring across files. You have to be careful you're not taking a piec= e of GPLv2+ code and copying/moving it into a file that's MIT licensed, as that would be non-compliant. We already suffer this problem with our mixt= ure of GPLv2-only and GPLv2+ and LGPLv2+ and BSD licensed code. So I'm person= ally loathe to see us add yet another license to the mix. Ultimately though, Peter Maydall is the one who has the final say on whet= her we'll pull the patch series. So I'll defer to him for a definitive answer= on whether its OK for riscv files to add MIT license to the mix, either long term or as a temporary state. >=20 > 'cc Sagar, Bastian, as they have been main contributors to the port in = the > past... >=20 > Regards, > Michael. >=20 > On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 11:10 PM, Daniel P. Berrang=C3=A9 > wrote: >=20 > > On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 01:11:46PM +1300, Michael Clark wrote: > > > QEMU RISC-V Emulation Support (RV64GC, RV32GC) > > > > > > This is hopefully the "fix remaining issues in-tree" release. > > > > This code seems to be a mixture of LGPLv2+ and MIT licensed code. The > > preferred license for QEMU contributions is GPLv2+. Is there a reason > > you need to diverge from this or can it be changed to be all GPLv2+ ? Regards, Daniel --=20 |: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberran= ge :| |: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.c= om :| |: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberran= ge :|