On Mon, 21 Oct 2019 at 17:46, Daniel P. Berrangé <berra...@redhat.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 05:36:49PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote: > > On Mon, 21 Oct 2019 at 15:58, Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org> > > wrote: > > > Since 2008 the tcg/LICENSE file has not changed: it claims that > > > everything under tcg/ is BSD-licensed. > > > > > > This is not true and hasn't been true for years: in 2013 we > > > accepted the tcg/aarch64 target code under a GPLv2-or-later > > > license statement. We don't really consider the tcg > > > subdirectory to be a distinct part of QEMU anyway. > > > > This commit message misses the other not-BSD bits of code in tcg/: > > tcg/tci.c is GPL-2-or-later > > tcg/tcg-gvec-desc.h, tcg/tcg-op-gvec.[ch], tcg-op-vec.c are LGPL2.1-or-later > > > > Horse has clearly bolted further from the stable than > > I had first thought. > > No matter what text we put in the top LICENSE file is always going to be > rather vague because of the many different licenses scattered across the > codebase.
There's two parts to this: (1) is what we say in LICENSE what we actually have in practice? (answer: clearly "no") (2) as a policy, do we want to be stricter about the license for code contributed to tcg/ than to the rest of the codebase? (which is what this patch is trying to flush out answers to) > We really ought to make an effort to add SPDX tags to every file in the > source tree & have checkpatch.pl enforce that all new files come with > SPDX tags too. Identifying licenses for code then becomes a trivial grep. My take on SPDX is still the same as it was last year: https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2018-11/msg04151.html thanks -- PMM
