From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Alexander Graf Subject: Re: [Qemu-ppc] [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 4/4] kvm: i386: Add classic PCI device assignment Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2012 23:42:31 -0400 Message-ID: <959ADF01-7A40-4786-BCEA-CD4AB4AF2DF0@suse.de> 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> <87zk54l1fd.fsf@codemonkey.ws> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1278) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Cc: Anthony Liguori , kvm@vger.kernel.org, "Michael S. Tsirkin" , Marcelo Tosatti , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Alex Williamson , Jan Kiszka , Avi Kivity , qemu-ppc , =?iso-8859-1?Q?Andreas_F=E4rber?= To: Blue Swirl Return-path: Received: from cantor2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:57712 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751358Ab2IFDm5 convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Sep 2012 23:42:57 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 05.09.2012, at 15:38, Blue Swirl wrote: > On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 7:22 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote: >> Blue Swirl writes: >> >>> On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 3:41 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. >>> >>> The advantage of 100% GPLv2+ (or other GPLv3 compatible) would be that >>> QEMU could share code from GPLv3 projects, specifically latest >>> binutils. Reinventing a disassembler for ever growing x86 assembly is >>> no fun. >> >> But we can't share code with Linux (like for virtio). > > It's a tradeoff between reimplementing disassembler without using > binutils vs. reimplementing virtio without using Linux. Both have > their problems and both are growing areas. Disassembler is a bit > smaller and the basic function does not ever change. > >> >> Yes, the GPLv3 sucks and FSF screwed up massively not making it v2 >> compatible. > > I sort of agree. They had their reasons, of course. Too bad binutils > licensing is fully controlled by FSF, for us it would be enough if > they had some sort of dual licensing scheme (GPLv3 + BSD for example) > in place. What do the BSD guys do here? They want to have a disassembler too that works across all different sorts of architectures, no? Alex From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:46489) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1T9SzZ-00045Q-Rv for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 05 Sep 2012 23:42:58 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1T9SzY-000724-Mg for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 05 Sep 2012 23:42:57 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1278) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Alexander Graf In-Reply-To: Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2012 23:42:31 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <959ADF01-7A40-4786-BCEA-CD4AB4AF2DF0@suse.de> 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> <87zk54l1fd.fsf@codemonkey.ws> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [Qemu-ppc] [PATCH 4/4] kvm: i386: Add classic PCI device assignment List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Blue Swirl Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org, "Michael S. Tsirkin" , Marcelo Tosatti , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Alex Williamson , Jan Kiszka , Avi Kivity , Anthony Liguori , qemu-ppc , =?iso-8859-1?Q?Andreas_F=E4rber?= On 05.09.2012, at 15:38, Blue Swirl wrote: > On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 7:22 PM, Anthony Liguori = wrote: >> Blue Swirl writes: >>=20 >>> On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 3:41 PM, Anthony Liguori = wrote: >>>> Avi Kivity writes: >>>>=20 >>>>> On 09/05/2012 12:00 AM, Anthony Liguori wrote: >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> 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). >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> Asking is one thing. Requiring is another. >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> 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. >>>>>=20 >>>>> 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). >>>>=20 >>>> I don't want QEMU to be GPLv3. I don't like the terms of the = GPLv3. >>>>=20 >>>> I don't mind GPLv2+, if people want to share code from QEMU in = GPLv3 >>>> projects, GPLv2+ enables that. >>>=20 >>> The advantage of 100% GPLv2+ (or other GPLv3 compatible) would be = that >>> QEMU could share code from GPLv3 projects, specifically latest >>> binutils. Reinventing a disassembler for ever growing x86 assembly = is >>> no fun. >>=20 >> But we can't share code with Linux (like for virtio). >=20 > It's a tradeoff between reimplementing disassembler without using > binutils vs. reimplementing virtio without using Linux. Both have > their problems and both are growing areas. Disassembler is a bit > smaller and the basic function does not ever change. >=20 >>=20 >> Yes, the GPLv3 sucks and FSF screwed up massively not making it v2 >> compatible. >=20 > I sort of agree. They had their reasons, of course. Too bad binutils > licensing is fully controlled by FSF, for us it would be enough if > they had some sort of dual licensing scheme (GPLv3 + BSD for example) > in place. What do the BSD guys do here? They want to have a disassembler too that = works across all different sorts of architectures, no? Alex