On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 07:49:32PM -0400, Kevin O'Connor wrote: > On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 04:14:27PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > As an intermediate step in the process of moving acpi tables to qemu, we > > need to make sure the code we'll be moving is GPLv2 compatible. > > I think keeping the relevant files dual-license for a while is the best > > way to do this, this way code and bufixes can be shared. > > When everything moves to QEMU and if we drop commmon code from seabios, > > dual license can go. > > > > The code was originally GPLv2 in bochs so these bits are OK. > > FYI - the BIOS code was LGPLv2 in Bochs. > > > When this RFC looks OK to maintainers I'll follow up with everyone who > > contributed code to these files with a request to ack this patch. > > > > Add a copy of GPLv2 in source, make it clear it only > > applies to specific files. > > > > QEMU generally prefers GPLv2 or later, but GPLv2 is also > > accepted. I assumed 'or later' won't be acceptable to Kevin, > > further, the DSDTs are currently explictly under GPLv2 so this is > > consistent. > > I actually prefer "or later" - I don't recall why I didn't state that > in the beginning. It didn't seem worthwhile to change it later on.
Okay so should I simply try to make it all LGPLv2+? Or dual LGPLv3 and GPLv2+ like I did here? > As before, I'm okay with relicensing the ACPI files in your patch to > GPLv2 (or LGPLv2, with or without "or later"). Okay I will follow up with a more formal patch, just pls clarify the question above. > I don't think it makes sense to commit the GPLv2 license text to > SeaBIOS in the interim - as that seems like it could cause confusion. > > -Kevin Well dual license on the QEMU copy is a bit more friendly to QEMU as code can move in both directions. But if you fear confusion, I'll just apply the patch to QEMU only. -- MST _______________________________________________ SeaBIOS mailing list SeaBIOS@seabios.org http://www.seabios.org/mailman/listinfo/seabios