[SeaBIOS] [PATCH RFC dontapply] license: make acpi bits GPLv2 compatible

Michael S. Tsirkin mst at redhat.com
Tue Mar 19 09:10:20 CET 2013

On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 07:49:32PM -0400, Kevin O'Connor wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 04:14:27PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > As an intermediate step in the process of moving acpi tables to qemu, we
> > need to make sure the code we'll be moving is GPLv2 compatible.
> > I think keeping the relevant files dual-license for a while is the best
> > way to do this, this way code and bufixes can be shared.
> > When everything moves to QEMU and if we drop commmon code from seabios,
> > dual license can go.
> > 
> > The code was originally GPLv2 in bochs so these bits are OK.
> FYI - the BIOS code was LGPLv2 in Bochs.
> > When this RFC looks OK to maintainers I'll follow up with everyone who
> > contributed code to these files with a request to ack this patch.
> > 
> > Add a copy of GPLv2 in source, make it clear it only
> > applies to specific files.
> > 
> > QEMU generally prefers GPLv2 or later, but GPLv2 is also
> > accepted. I assumed 'or later' won't be acceptable to Kevin,
> > further, the DSDTs are currently explictly under GPLv2 so this is
> > consistent.
> I actually prefer "or later" - I don't recall why I didn't state that
> in the beginning.  It didn't seem worthwhile to change it later on.

Okay so should I simply try to make it all LGPLv2+? Or dual
LGPLv3 and GPLv2+ like I did here?

> As before, I'm okay with relicensing the ACPI files in your patch to
> GPLv2 (or LGPLv2, with or without "or later").

Okay I will follow up with a more formal patch, just pls clarify the
question above.

> I don't think it makes sense to commit the GPLv2 license text to
> SeaBIOS in the interim - as that seems like it could cause confusion.
> -Kevin

Well dual license on the QEMU copy is a bit more friendly to QEMU
as code can move in both directions.
But if you fear confusion, I'll just apply the patch to QEMU only.


More information about the SeaBIOS mailing list