On 23 September 2016 at 14:37, Felipe Franciosi <fel...@nutanix.com> wrote: > >> 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.
That clause is intended to deal with random leftover files which don't have an explicit statement for some reason (usually historical), not as a justification for increasing the number of files without licensing info. In an ideal world all our files would have a header comment giving the licensing info and copyright details. thanks -- PMM
