On Wed, Sep 05, 2012 at 06:26:54PM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote: > 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).
Would be nice to add a clarification in the header: people tend to copy boilerplate around. > > -- > error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
