On 07/28/2014 02:03 AM, Marc Dietrich wrote:
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.
I'll ask Eric to comment on this again, although please note that he's
out on vacation this week.
That is, unless Allen has any comment?
[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
NVIDIA’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 NVIDIA’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 (“Effective Date�)
and continue for a period of one (1) year (“Initial Term�)
respectively, unless terminated earlier in accordance with the
“Termination� 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 “Termination� 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 buildds…
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
--
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
