From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Avi Kivity Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 4/4] kvm: i386: Add classic PCI device assignment Date: Wed, 05 Sep 2012 18:52:19 +0300 Message-ID: <50477533.9020907@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> <50476F3E.7000100@redhat.com> <87wr081nq4.fsf@codemonkey.ws> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Andreas_F=E4rber?= , kvm@vger.kernel.org, "Michael S. Tsirkin" , Alexey Kardashevskiy , Marcelo Tosatti , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Blue Swirl , Alex Williamson , Jan Kiszka , qemu-ppc To: Anthony Liguori Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:57157 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753156Ab2IEPw3 (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Sep 2012 11:52:29 -0400 In-Reply-To: <87wr081nq4.fsf@codemonkey.ws> Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 09/05/2012 06:41 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote: > Avi Kivity writes: > >> 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). > > I don't want QEMU to be GPLv3. I don't like the terms of the GPLv3. > > I don't mind GPLv2+, if people want to share code from QEMU in GPLv3 > projects, GPLv2+ enables that. > > But if new code is coming in and happens to be under GPLv2, that just > means that the contribution cannot be used outside of QEMU in a GPLv3 > project. That's fine and that's a decision for the submitter to make. Makes sense. -- 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]:43329) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1T9Hu6-0005kx-CS for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 05 Sep 2012 11:52:40 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1T9Htz-0000qJ-Ha for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 05 Sep 2012 11:52:34 -0400 Message-ID: <50477533.9020907@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 05 Sep 2012 18:52:19 +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> <50476F3E.7000100@redhat.com> <87wr081nq4.fsf@codemonkey.ws> In-Reply-To: <87wr081nq4.fsf@codemonkey.ws> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 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 , =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Andreas_F=E4rber?= On 09/05/2012 06:41 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote: > Avi Kivity writes: > >> 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). > > I don't want QEMU to be GPLv3. I don't like the terms of the GPLv3. > > I don't mind GPLv2+, if people want to share code from QEMU in GPLv3 > projects, GPLv2+ enables that. > > But if new code is coming in and happens to be under GPLv2, that just > means that the contribution cannot be used outside of QEMU in a GPLv3 > project. That's fine and that's a decision for the submitter to make. Makes sense. -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function