On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 2:53 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
[...]
>>
>> Removing libqemu.a was technically ok, but throws a license problem:
>>
>
> Every file contains a copyright/license. The statement in the top level is
> just a statement of intention. It's to make sure that people do not
> introd
On 03/06/2010 05:33 AM, Stefan Weil wrote:
Blue Swirl schrieb:
Thanks, applied.
On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 7:24 PM, Andreas Färber
wrote:
From: Andreas Färber
Juan has contributed a cool Makefile infrastructure that enables us
to drop
static libraries completely:
Move shared obj-y d
Blue Swirl schrieb:
> Thanks, applied.
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 7:24 PM, Andreas Färber
> wrote:
>> From: Andreas Färber
>>
>> Juan has contributed a cool Makefile infrastructure that enables us
>> to drop
>> static libraries completely:
>>
>> Move shared obj-y definitions to Makefile.objs, p
CVSROOT:/sources/qemu
Module name:qemu
Changes by: Fabrice Bellard08/02/01 10:50:12
Modified files:
. : LICENSE Makefile.target configure cpu-all.h
cpu-defs.h cpu-exec.c dyngen.c exec-all.h
exec.c tran
On Thursday 21 June 2007, Armbrost Failsafe wrote:
> We are looking into using QEMU as the base for a model of a custom system
> featuring some custom ASICs. But licensing issues are halting the process
> right now. Does anyone know what happens license-wise if we create a model
> of proprietary ha
Hi,
On Fri, 22 Jun 2007, Luke -Jr wrote:
> On Friday 22 June 2007 12:37, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
> > If at the same time you make something original, which is not derived from
> > the GPLed program, then you are as free as a bird to sh*t on the GPL with
> > regards to your original work. You c
On Friday 22 June 2007 12:37, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
> If at the same time you make something original, which is not derived from
> the GPLed program, then you are as free as a bird to sh*t on the GPL with
> regards to your original work. You can choose whatever license, if any.
Not if you wan
On Jun 22, 2007, at 10:11 AM, Luke -Jr wrote:
On Friday 22 June 2007 11:46, M. Warner Losh wrote:
In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Luke -Jr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: On Friday 22 June 2007 11:07, you wrote:
: > > On Thursday 21 June 2007 17:33, M. Warner Losh wrote:
: > > > The G
Hi,
On Fri, 22 Jun 2007, Luke -Jr wrote:
> On Friday 22 June 2007 11:46, M. Warner Losh wrote:
>
> > If what you did somehow wasn't a derivative work, then the there's no
> > legal basis for forcing compliance with a license.
>
> Unless you modify or distribute the work. These acts are illegal
[[ This is my last post on this topic, as we're starting to get quite
far afield from QEMU and I'm starting to repeat myself. "Luke -Jr"
wants the last word, he can have it ]]
In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Luke -Jr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: On Friday 22 June 2007 11:46, M.
On Friday 22 June 2007 11:46, M. Warner Losh wrote:
> In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Luke -Jr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> : On Friday 22 June 2007 11:07, you wrote:
> : > > On Thursday 21 June 2007 17:33, M. Warner Losh wrote:
> : > > > The GPL only has as much force of law as copy
On Friday 22 June 2007 11:07, you wrote:
> > On Thursday 21 June 2007 17:33, M. Warner Losh wrote:
> > > The GPL only has as much force of law as copyright law gives it, and in
> > > order to be applicable, the work in question must somehow rely on the
> > > GPL'd work. The "somehow" here is an in
In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Luke -Jr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: On Friday 22 June 2007 11:07, you wrote:
: > > On Thursday 21 June 2007 17:33, M. Warner Losh wrote:
: > > > The GPL only has as much force of law as copyright law gives it, and in
: > > > order to be applicable, the
From: Luke -Jr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] QEMU License and proprietary hardware
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2007 10:18:01 -0500
> On Thursday 21 June 2007 17:33, M. Warner Losh wrote:
> > The GPL only has as much force of law as copyright law gives it, and in
> > o
On Friday 22 June 2007 00:34, Balazs Attila-Mihaly (Cd-MaN) wrote:
> I must prefix this with the fact that IANAL, but as I understand it, you
> must release the source code only if you distribute that modified system
> (with GPL v2). That is, if you use this system internally in you company,
> you
On Thursday 21 June 2007 17:33, M. Warner Losh wrote:
> The GPL only has as much force of law as copyright law gives it, and in
> order to be applicable, the work in question must somehow rely on the GPL'd
> work. The "somehow" here is an interesting legal question that hasn't been
> well settled.
hared library, and you would have no
obligation regarding the code in the shared library.
- Original Message
From: Armbrost Failsafe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org
Sent: Thursday, 21 June, 2007 2:28:53 PM
Subject: [Qemu-devel] QEMU License and proprietary hardwar
In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Luke -Jr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: On Thursday 21 June 2007 06:28, Armbrost Failsafe wrote:
: > We are looking into using QEMU as the base for a model of a custom system
: > featuring some custom ASICs. But licensing issues are halting the process
: >
On Thursday 21 June 2007 06:28, Armbrost Failsafe wrote:
> We are looking into using QEMU as the base for a model of a custom system
> featuring some custom ASICs. But licensing issues are halting the process
> right now. Does anyone know what happens license-wise if we create a model
> of propriet
We are looking into using QEMU as the base for a model of a custom system
featuring some custom ASICs. But licensing issues are halting the process
right now. Does anyone know what happens license-wise if we create a model
of proprietary hardware using QEMU? Is that model automatically covered by
CVSROOT:/sources/qemu
Module name:qemu
Changes by: Fabrice Bellard07/02/05 21:06:29
Modified files:
. : LICENSE
Log message:
update
CVSWeb URLs:
http://cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/qemu/LICENSE?cvsroot=qemu&r1=1.2&r2=1.3
___
21 matches
Mail list logo
