On 3 April 2012 01:51, David Gibson <d...@au1.ibm.com> wrote: > On Mon, Apr 02, 2012 at 09:49:12AM +0200, Andreas Färber wrote: >> Yes, the issue here is under what license the file is. It's a new file, >> so in lack of a license statement is it under GPLv2 because QEMU as a >> whole currently is? Thus a header explicitly saying that it's under >> GPLv2+ (or BSD or MIT/X11 or ...) would be appreciated to avoid further >> complications. Compare our GPLv2+ relicensing page: >> >> http://wiki.qemu.org/Relicensing > > It's 4 trivial lines. Well under the copyrightability threshold even > by the paranoid estimates of IBM Legal.
(a) other legal departments may be more paranoid still (b) how about when somebody else adds more code to the header later (c) if a file has a clear license statement then it's immediately obvious what the situation is. Why be ambigious when you can be clear? -- PMM
