From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Avi Kivity Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] kvm: i386: Add classic PCI device assignment Date: Wed, 05 Sep 2012 18:26:54 +0300 Message-ID: <50476F3E.7000100@redhat.com> References: <825e653c9cfe9d8e26185917cbe1f1dd7ae299e2.1346048917.git.jan.kiszka@web.de> <503B62F4.9070500@suse.de> <87k3wjyy0e.fsf@codemonkey.ws> <503E227B.40904@suse.de> <874nndmrjs.fsf@codemonkey.ws> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org, "Michael S. Tsirkin" , Alexey Kardashevskiy , Marcelo Tosatti , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Blue Swirl , Alex Williamson , Jan Kiszka , qemu-ppc , =?UTF-8?B?QW5kcmVhcyBGw6RyYmVy?= To: Anthony Liguori Return-path: In-Reply-To: <874nndmrjs.fsf@codemonkey.ws> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+gceq-qemu-devel=gmane.org@nongnu.org Sender: qemu-devel-bounces+gceq-qemu-devel=gmane.org@nongnu.org List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.org On 09/05/2012 12:00 AM, Anthony Liguori wrote: >> >> Why? The way this is being submitted I don't see why we should treat >> Jan's patch any different from a patch by IBM or Samsung where we've >> asked folks to fix the license to comply with what I thought was our new >> policy (it does not even contain a from-x-on-GPLv2+ notice). > > Asking is one thing. Requiring is another. > > I would prefer that people submitted GPLv2+, but I don't think it should > be a hard requirement. It means, among other things, that we cannot > accept most code that originates from the Linux kernel. We could extend this to "require unless there is a reason to grant an exception" if we wanted to (not saying I know whether we want to or not). -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:57737) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1T9HVa-00029x-2W for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 05 Sep 2012 11:27:23 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1T9HVU-0001BH-5T for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 05 Sep 2012 11:27:14 -0400 Message-ID: <50476F3E.7000100@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 05 Sep 2012 18:26:54 +0300 From: Avi Kivity MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <825e653c9cfe9d8e26185917cbe1f1dd7ae299e2.1346048917.git.jan.kiszka@web.de> <503B62F4.9070500@suse.de> <87k3wjyy0e.fsf@codemonkey.ws> <503E227B.40904@suse.de> <874nndmrjs.fsf@codemonkey.ws> In-Reply-To: <874nndmrjs.fsf@codemonkey.ws> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 4/4] kvm: i386: Add classic PCI device assignment List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Anthony Liguori Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org, "Michael S. Tsirkin" , Alexey Kardashevskiy , Marcelo Tosatti , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Blue Swirl , Alex Williamson , Jan Kiszka , qemu-ppc , =?UTF-8?B?QW5kcmVhcyBGw6RyYmVy?= On 09/05/2012 12:00 AM, Anthony Liguori wrote: >> >> Why? The way this is being submitted I don't see why we should treat >> Jan's patch any different from a patch by IBM or Samsung where we've >> asked folks to fix the license to comply with what I thought was our new >> policy (it does not even contain a from-x-on-GPLv2+ notice). > > Asking is one thing. Requiring is another. > > I would prefer that people submitted GPLv2+, but I don't think it should > be a hard requirement. It means, among other things, that we cannot > accept most code that originates from the Linux kernel. We could extend this to "require unless there is a reason to grant an exception" if we wanted to (not saying I know whether we want to or not). -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function