> On 23 Sep 2016, at 14:24, Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org> wrote: > > On 23 September 2016 at 13:51, Felipe Franciosi <fel...@nutanix.com> wrote: >> As discussed on the list [1], having a comment stating that this file >> is "public domain" is arguably wrong and not legally binding. By >> removing this statement from the header, the file is under the >> project-wide GPLv2+ license. >> >> [1] http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2016-09/msg06151.html >> >> Signed-off-by: Felipe Franciosi <fel...@nutanix.com> >> --- >> include/qemu/compiler.h | 2 -- >> 1 file changed, 2 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/include/qemu/compiler.h b/include/qemu/compiler.h >> index 338d3a6..9d6d09b 100644 >> --- a/include/qemu/compiler.h >> +++ b/include/qemu/compiler.h >> @@ -1,5 +1,3 @@ >> -/* public domain */ >> - >> #ifndef COMPILER_H >> #define COMPILER_H > > Can we have a comment specifically saying what license it is under, > please? Something like > > /* compiler.h: macros to abstract away compiler specifics > * > * This work is licensed under the terms of the GNU GPL, version 2 or later. > * See the COPYING file in the top-level directory. > */
I'm not against that, but the consensus seems to be that what's currently in LICENSE is clear enough: http://git.qemu.org/?p=qemu.git;a=blob_plain;f=LICENSE;hb=HEAD 2) ... Source files with no licensing information are released under the GNU General Public License, version 2 or (at your option) any later version. Thanks, Felipe > > thanks > -- PMM
