"Michael S. Tsirkin" <m...@redhat.com> writes: > On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 02:32:17PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote: >> >> >> On 22/06/2015 14:30, Paulo Alcantara wrote: >> >>> >> +/* >> >>> >> + * QEMU ICH9 TCO emulation >> >>> >> + * >> >>> >> + * Copyright (c) 2015 Paulo Alcantara <pca...@zytor.com> >> >>> >> + * >> >>> >> + * Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person >> >>> >> obtaining a copy >> >>> >> + * of this software and associated documentation files (the >> >>> >> "Software"), to deal >> >>> >> + * in the Software without restriction, including without limitation >> >>> >> the rights >> >>> >> + * to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, >> >>> >> sublicense, and/or >> >>> >> sell >> >>> >> + * copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software >> >>> >> is >> >>> >> + * furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions: >> >>> >> + * >> >>> >> + * The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be >> >>> >> included in >> >>> >> + * all copies or substantial portions of the Software. >> >>> >> + * >> >>> >> + * THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, >> >>> >> EXPRESS OR >> >>> >> + * IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF >> >>> >> MERCHANTABILITY, >> >>> >> + * FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT >> >>> >> SHALL >> >>> >> + * THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, >> >>> >> DAMAGES OR >> >>> >> OTHER >> >>> >> + * LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, >> >>> >> ARISING FROM, >> >>> >> + * OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER >> >>> >> DEALINGS IN >> >>> >> + * THE SOFTWARE. >> >> > >> >> > Please make new original code GPLv2+. If you have copied from another >> >> > file, then you should follow that file's licensing, but in that case >> >> > you should also acknowledge the original copyright. >> > OK. >> >> Why? The only "forbidden" license for new code is GPLv2. >> >> If you want to make things more permissive, that's accepted. >> >> Paolo > > Because it's a pain if I need to move code between files with different > licenses. MIT is GPL compatible but mixing licenses at random is still > not a good idea.
Seconded. New code should be GPLv2+ unless you have a really good reason for something else. Keeping the original license in a derivative work is a really good reason (assuming it's compatible to GPLv2; if it's not, we can't use the derivative work anyway). LGPLv2+ license for code meant to be linked into differently licensed other projects may be a good reason. Other reasons exist. Whatever your reason is, you need to explain it.
