On 11/08/2011 04:39 PM, Peter Maydell wrote:
>> + * This work is licensed under the terms of the GNU GPL, version 2. See
>> + * the COPYING file in the top-level directory.
>
> ... or later please.
Need to be careful here. Marking something previously unmarked as
GPLv2 is pretty clearly OK because the project license is v2 so
the unmarked stuff was contributed either under that or under a
compatible license. Marking as v2+ is on somewhat thinner ice
IMHO and ideally we shouldn't do it without an ack from the
relevant copyright owner.
Richard Fontana (who is not our lawyer, but still knows the GPL pretty
well) posted a while ago his reasoning as to why it should be safe to
consider files without a header to be GPLv2+. Of course this is only as
long as they do not contain GPLv2-only code from non-QEMU sources.
Paolo
