Return-path: Received: from mail-pb0-f47.google.com ([209.85.160.47]:52687 "EHLO mail-pb0-f47.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756777AbaFYPrg (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 Jun 2014 11:47:36 -0400 Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2014 08:47:31 -0700 From: "Luis R. Rodriguez" To: Ben Hutchings Cc: Kalle Valo , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , David Woodhouse , linux-wireless , ath10k@lists.infradead.org, "netdev@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] ath10k: add firmware files Message-ID: <20140625154731.GJ1390@garbanzo.do-not-panic.com> (sfid-20140625_174752_415219_C609B7FE) References: <20140314084501.23100.13103.stgit@x230> <20140314084514.23100.72654.stgit@x230> <1394996230.15764.113.camel@deadeye.wl.decadent.org.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 01:17:52PM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 11:57 AM, Ben Hutchings wrote: > > On Fri, 2014-03-14 at 05:36 -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > >> On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 1:45 AM, Kalle Valo wrote: > > [...] > >> > + NO LICENSES OR OTHER RIGHTS, > >> > +WHETHER EXPRESS, IMPLIED, BASED ON ESTOPPEL OR OTHERWISE, ARE GRANTED > >> > +TO ANY PARTY'S PATENTS, PATENT APPLICATIONS, OR PATENTABLE INVENTIONS > >> > +BY VIRTUE OF THIS LICENSE OR THE DELIVERY OR PROVISION BY QUALCOMM > >> > +ATHEROS, INC. OF THE SOFTWARE. > >> > >> This -- however is new to linux-firmware -- and I hereby raise a big > >> red fucking flag. All other licenses on linux-firmware provide at the > >> very least a limited patent grant. What makes Qualcomm special ? > > [...] > > > > There are several licence texts that don't mention patents at all. I'm > > assuming that the companies submitting firmware for inclusion in Linux > > or linux-firmware do intend to grant whatever licences are required to > > distribute it to end users. > > Agreed, this would be the only fair thing. > > > Several licence texts explicitly exclude patent licences relating to any > > *other* products of the same company, but that's quite redundant. > > Sure. > > > However this language seems to explicitly exclude *any* patent licence. > > Yeap, they are making it crystal clear. > > > You're right to raise a red flag because, assuming Qualcomm does have > > patents that cover the firmware alone, this seems to disallow > > redistribution in whatever jurisdictions those patents apply. > > I'm also fearful of this setting a precedent for other vendors. <-- snip --> > To avoid patches as this one should we define some basic guidelines > for linux-firmware acceptable licenses? How about this small change to clarify ? >From b0b9bd8328f797836ce0db6157232d017220594b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: "Luis R. Rodriguez" Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2014 08:41:25 -0700 Subject: [PATCH] README: clarify redistribution requirements covering patents Firmware licenses should include an implicit or explicit patent grant to end users for full device operation. Signed-off-by: Luis R. Rodriguez --- README | 5 ++++- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/README b/README index f2ed92e..d2a56ec 100644 --- a/README +++ b/README @@ -18,7 +18,10 @@ and also cc: to related mailing lists. Your commit should include an update to the WHENCE file clearly identifying the licence under which the firmware is available, and -that it is redistributable. If the licence is long and involved, it's +that it is redistributable. Being redistributable includes ensuring +the firmware license provided includes an implicit or explicit +patent grant to end users to ensure full functionality of device +operation with the firmware. If the licence is long and involved, it's permitted to include it in a separate file and refer to it from the WHENCE file. And if it were possible, a changelog of the firmware itself. -- 2.0.0