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 <ben@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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 <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. > > 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" <mcgrof@xxxxxxxx> 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 <mcgrof@xxxxxxxx> --- 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 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
