Christian Schoenebeck <qemu_...@crudebyte.com> writes: > On Dienstag, 24. August 2021 17:24:50 CEST Christian Schoenebeck wrote: >> On Dienstag, 24. August 2021 16:45:12 CEST Markus Armbruster wrote: >> > Christian Schoenebeck <qemu_...@crudebyte.com> writes: >> > > On Dienstag, 24. August 2021 10:22:52 CEST Markus Armbruster wrote: >> > [...] >> > >> > >> Please use GPLv2+ unless you have a compelling reason not to. >> > >> >> > >> [...] >> > > >> > > Is that a requirement? >> > > >> > > It is just my personal license preference. AFAICS there are numerous >> > > sources in QEMU released under MIT license as well. >> > >> > The licensing situation is a mess. >> > >> > The only hard requirement is "compatible with GPLv2+". We prefer GPLv2+ >> > for new code, except as detailed in ./LICENSE. We're stuck with a >> > sizable body of existing code that is GPLv2 (no +), but decided to put >> > limits to that madness. Again, see ./LICENSE for details. >> > >> > I'm asking you to help with limiting the madness by sticking to GPLv2+ >> > whenever possible. >> >> Okay, I see that there is quite a homogenous license structure in Qemu.
Self-inflicted wound. We should have insisted on GPLv2+. >> However the MIT license is a very permissive license, so I don't see any >> conflicts. > > s/homogenous/heterogeneous/ > >> What if I release this file under public domain? That's not even copyleft at >> all. What that be OK for you? > > "Would" that be OK for you? My preference: GPLv2+ > MIT > public domain. If you go with anything but GPLv2+, please explain why in your commit message. One sentence should suffice, say "MIT license to minimize license issues when "stealing" this code for other projects." >> My idea was that people might simply take this header file and use it in >> other C projects as well. Putting it under GPL might cause conflicts for >> other projects.
