"Michael S. Tsirkin" email@example.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 firstname.lastname@example.org > + * > + * 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.
Why? The only "forbidden" license for new code is GPLv2.
If you want to make things more permissive, that's accepted.
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.