Le 12/09/2011 17:47, Klaus Espenlaub a écrit : > On 12.09.2011 17:38, Klaus Espenlaub wrote: >> On 07.09.2011 12:55, François Revol wrote: >>> Le 07/09/2011 11:22, Ramshankar a écrit : >>>> On 09/ 6/11 09:52 PM, Mike Smith wrote: >>>>>> I'm sure Mike will be ok as well, he'll probably reply to this >>>>>> thread. >>>>> Hi, everyone. (Sorry I'm late, I was in class when this discussion >>>>> started.) >>>>> >>>>>> The work should be MIT-licensed. >>>>> I'm not attached to any specific license; MIT is fine. Should I add >>>>> copyright/license headers to the files that don't have them? >>>> >>>> Yes we require MIT; take a look at >>>> src/VBox/HostDrivers/VBoxNetFlt/freebsd/VBoxNetFlt-freebsd.c or >>>> http://www.virtualbox.org/wiki/MIT%20license and use it as a template. >>> >>> Actually, as we discussed it on IRC, the only issue left is about files >>> which I originally copied from other platforms that had the GPL licence >>> headers (or maybe even the header that I copied to other files to match >>> the rest) before the (non)OSE merge. But since Oracle retains copyright >>> on those files it should be ok anyway. >> >> Sorry, this isn't quite accurate. We can't routinely accept >> contributions which are covered by GPL. > > It was pointed out to me that I probably read too much into "which I > originally copied from other platforms that had the GPL licence > headers"... if the source of this code is VirtualBox you can forget > about all my concerns below. In this case it's not a problem.
It is. It all comes from the virtualbox svn. François. _______________________________________________ vbox-dev mailing list [email protected] http://vbox.innotek.de/mailman/listinfo/vbox-dev
