On 16/12/2024 11:17, Thomas Huth wrote:
> On 16/12/2024 11.38, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
>> On Sat, Dec 14, 2024 at 08:38:06PM +0000, Mark Cave-Ayland wrote:
>>> On 12/12/2024 17:28, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, Dec 12, 2024 at 11:46:20AM +0000, Mark Cave-Ayland wrote:
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Mark Cave-Ayland <mark.cave-ayland@ilande.co.uk>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> hw/m68k/next-cube.c | 5 +----
>>>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/hw/m68k/next-cube.c b/hw/m68k/next-cube.c
>>>>> index 1e96bb02f8..3c2f3e295c 100644
>>>>> --- a/hw/m68k/next-cube.c
>>>>> +++ b/hw/m68k/next-cube.c
>>>>> @@ -4,10 +4,7 @@
>>>>> * Copyright (c) 2011 Bryce Lanham
>>>>> * Copyright (c) 2024 Mark Cave-Ayland
>>>>> *
>>>>> - * This code is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
>>>>> - * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published
>>>>> - * by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License,
>>>>> - * or (at your option) any later version.
>>>>> + * SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-or-later
>>>>> */
>>>>
>>>> While adding a SPDX-License-Identifier alongside existing header text
>>>> is acceptable, my view is that we should stay away from removing existing
>>>> license headers. There are some difficult questions wrt interpretation
>>>> of the GPL in this area & avoiding opening that can of worms would be
>>>> nice.
>>>
>>> I remember you mentioned this before, but I wasn't sure if this would be
>>> mitigated by the fact that the code originated from GSoC? I'm sure I've seen
>>> at least one recent patch that made a similar change, but if there really
>>> are legal reasons not to allow changes of this type then I shall drop it
>>> from the series.
>>
>> GSoC isn't really important. The challenging problem here is GPL clause 1
>> which says
>>
>> "keep intact all the notices that refer to this License and to the
>> absence of any warranty"
>>
>> there are differing opinions on how strictly to interpret the "keep intact"
>> language there.
>>
>> While we could have a debate over this and come to some project opinion
>> IMHO it is a better use of our time to just not remove existing notices.
>
> I generally agree with Daniel here ... but in this special case, I should maybe
> mention that Bryce's original file only had a "This code is licensed under the GPL"
> statement in it:
>
> https://github.com/blanham/qemu-NeXT/blob/next-cube/hw/next-cube.c#L12
>
> IIRC it was me who replaced that with the usual boilerplate when I picked up his work
> to get it included in the upstream QEMU. And for me, it's fine if we switch to SPDX
> here, so in this special case, it might be OK to replace it?
Seeing as there still seems to be some questions over this patch, I'll drop it from
the v3 series.
ATB,
Mark.