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

[Michael S. Tsirkin]

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.

-- 
MST