added tegra ml, tegra maintainer, and tegrarcm maintainer. I think the license isn't appropriete for this software at all. See my notes regarding this here [1]. So lets take the chance and ping nvidia again on this issue. [1] http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-tegra/msg11945.html Am Sonntag, 27. Juli 2014, 20:23:20 schrieb Philipp Kern: > Hi, > > On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 09:55:20PM +0200, Marc Dietrich wrote: > > On Sun, 12 May 2013, Philipp Kern wrote: > > >Hi, > > > > > >On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 11:31:21AM +0200, Marc Dietrich wrote: > > >>The proprietary license only applies to the binaries included in some > > >>header> > > > >>files. FYI, here is the license: > > >it seems like an oversight: LICENSE says "The files tegra20-miniloader.h > > >and tegra30-miniloader.h are provided pursuant to the following license > > >agreement". But there is also tegra114-miniloader.h, which bears the > > >same "not usable without a specific agreement" header. > > > > thanks for finding this. I think this can be fixed easily. I'll ask my > > NVIDIA contact to update the LICENSE file regarding this. > > > > >Interestingly NVIDIA tells us in the license that it is "revocable", > > >which > > >is not the case for the graphics driver one. I presume we're already > > >talking about the binary code form here. It does not really make me happy > > >that we can only distribute this to sublicensees that agree to be bound > > >by the license and to owners of NVIDIA hardware. Both is untrue when > > > > >looking at buildds. ): > > Does the term "revocable" cause problems with the distribution? Does this > > mean that users downloading the code (or the binary) must delete it if > > NVIDIA tells debian to do so? Of course this is not possbile because we > > don't know the identity of the users downloading this code. Also we don't > > ask the users to aggree with the license before downloading/running the > > program. > > > > The code in the miniloader files is not run on the machine which runs > > tegrarcm. It is run on the target SoC, which is likely Tegra, because all > > other SoCs won't run this bootloader. So I think this is more or less > > harmless. > > whenever I go back to this license, I feel bad about it. Adding Luca who > accepted it. > > The graphic driver license clearly exempts Linux from the problematic > provisions. The tegra one does not even try. Here's 2.1: > > 2.1 Rights and Limitations of Grant. NVIDIA hereby grants to You the > following non-exclusive, non-transferable, revocable right under > NVIDIAâ??s copyrights to use, copy, distribute and sublicense the > SOFTWARE (solely in binary code form) to Your sublicensees (a) solely > for use in connection with NVIDIA hardware or software products; and > (b) pursuant to the terms and conditions of any form of end-user > software license agreement; provided, that Your sublicensees agree to > be bound by this LICENSE or terms and conditions that are as > protective of NVIDIAâ??s Intellectual Property Rights in the SOFTWARE as > this LICENSE > > I'm unsure if the latter part means that the users need to consent before we > can offer it (e.g. click-through). Unless we do not actually sublicense. > OTOH if we'd sublicense, then the users would not need to destroy copies > when we need to. > > And then there's clause 3: > > 3. TERM AND TERMINATION > . > This LICENSE and the licenses granted hereunder shall be effective as > of the date You download the applicable SOFTWARE (â??Effective Dateâ??) > and continue for a period of one (1) year (â??Initial Termâ??) > respectively, unless terminated earlier in accordance with the > â??Terminationâ?? provision of this LICENSE. Unless either party notifies > the other party of its intent to terminate this LICENSE at least three > (3) months prior to the end of the Initial Term or the applicable > renewal period, this License will be automatically renewed for one (1) > year renewal periods thereafter, unless terminated in accordance with > the â??Terminationâ?? provision of this LICENSE > . > NVIDIA may terminate this LICENSE at any time if You violate its > terms. Upon termination, You will immediately destroy the SOFTWARE or > return all copies of the SOFTWARE to NVIDIA, and certify to NVIDIA in > writing that such actions have been completed. Upon termination or > expiration of this LICENSE the license grants to Licensee shall > terminate, except that sublicenses rightfully granted by Licensee > under this LICENSE in connection with Paragraph 2 of this LICENSE > provided by Licensee prior to the termination or expiration of this > LICENSE shall survive in accordance with their respective form of > license terms and conditions. > [...] > > Do we have a precedent for such a clause? The whole language about one year > terms and announcements of termination worries me. That'd mean that > someone'd need to monitor NVIDIA's announcements and then request removal > from a stable release in time? Or will that only happen towards single > users? (I.e. must the notification be direct?) > > I guess the language about NVIDIA's products can be ok, given that the > compiled product is only useful on NVIDIA hardware anyway and will not be > executed on builddsâ?¦ > > Kind regards > Philipp Kern -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-tegra" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
