On 26 February 2018 at 10:47, Daniel P. Berrangé <berra...@redhat.com> wrote: > I accept that MIT is compatible with GPLv2+, so that's not an immediate legal > problem. The issue is that as we add more & more different licenses to QEMU, > it becomes a maintenance burden to developers, especially when doing code > refactoring across files. You have to be careful you're not taking a piece > of GPLv2+ code and copying/moving it into a file that's MIT licensed, as > that would be non-compliant. We already suffer this problem with our mixture > of GPLv2-only and GPLv2+ and LGPLv2+ and BSD licensed code. So I'm personally > loathe to see us add yet another license to the mix.
Unless I'm confused, we already have a lot of MIT-licensed code in the tree, including much of the block layer, accel/tcg, the audio subsystem. Looking at vl.c, it was put under the MIT license by Fabrice in 2003, so we've been living with it as part of our licensing mix for a very long time already. thanks -- PMM