On Fri, 2014-03-14 at 05:36 -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 1:45 AM, Kalle Valo <kvalo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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. Several licence texts explicitly exclude patent licences relating to any *other* products of the same company, but that's quite redundant. However this language seems to explicitly exclude *any* patent licence. 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. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings Computers are not intelligent. They only think they are.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
