On 17/01/2008, Thiemo Seufer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > andrzej zaborowski wrote: > > On 17/01/2008, Bill C. Riemers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > According to section 9 of the GPL, you would only have to contact > > > contributors for code which specified version 2 of the GPL and not > > > later... > > > > In order to relicense all of qemu, yes, plus contributors of > > BSD-licensed code, of which there is much more than GPLv2-licensed. > > Actually, re-licensing BSD code as GPL is legal (but not nice). > > > But there's no reason to relicense qemu. AFAIK there's no problem > > distributing qemu if it contains GPLv3, GPLv2 and BSD code just as > > there was no problem until now with GPLv2 and BSD code. So I'm not > > sure what this change helps. > > GPLv2 and GPLv3 have different provisions (e.g. the anti-DRM clause > in GPLv3). Both exclude further restrictions of any sort. This makes > them incompatible.
Ouch, right - I should do my reading. However the conflict between the GPL versions might only restrict the distribution of a qemu binary. And incorrect relicensing of the code would be illegal already in source form. So yes, probably only the GPLv2-only code would need permissions from authors, BSD should be ok left intact. All LGPL code seems to be v2 or greater. Regards
