On Fri, Feb 18, 2022 at 10:55:37AM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote: > On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 5:45 AM Kalle Valo <kvalo@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Thu, Dec 23, 2021 at 9:03 AM Kalle Valo <kvalo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > >> > > >> WHENCE | 14 +- > > >> ath11k/IPQ6018/hw1.0/Notice.txt | 48 +- > > > These Notice files seem problematic. They're clearly well intended, > > > but they have language that alludes to an agreement with Atheros and a > > > confidential nature to some of the files. Specifically: > > > > > > "...your use of these software > > > components together with the Qualcomm Atheros software (Qualcomm > > > Atheros software hereinafter referred to as “Software”) is > > > subject to the terms of your agreement from Qualcomm Atheros." > > > > > > Nobody has an opportunity to agree to anything with Atheros when they > > > consume the files from linux-firmware. There's also no explicit grant > > > of redistribution for any of these files. This is not the license; this is a description of the notice.txt file containing the notices to cover the 3rd party license requirements for attribution/notices included in redistribution of those parts. > > So this file we are discussing is the notice.txt file. In the WHENCE > > file the actual license for ath11k is: > > > > Licence: Redistributable. See LICENSE.QualcommAtheros_ath10k for details And this is where the license is and this includes license to redistribute. > Then is the notice.txt file needed at all? If a user or distribution > were to install this firmware, is the expectation that the notice.txt > file also be installed? Those 3rd party license might require various notifications to be included for notification/attribution purposes, so I would expect the notice.txt file to be redistributed whenever the firmware image is redistributed. > > Does that cover your concerns about redistribution? > > Not really. I understand the logic, but if the binding license for > the firmware is LICENSE.QualcommAtheros_ath10k but we still need > notice.txt for some reason, they conflict. It's ambiguous at best. Could you please be more specific on where you see a conflict? Maybe this would be clearer if the WHENCE file would not mark the notice.txt files with the "License: <file>" lines since these are not the license for the firmware binary and then there would be a single "License:" line pointing out the exact license that applies? Would the following in WHENCE work for you? Driver: ath11k - Qualcomm Technologies 802.11ax chipset support File: ath11k/IPQ6018/hw1.0/board-2.bin ... Version: WLAN.HK.2.1.0.1-01238-QCAHKSWPL_SILICONZ-2 Notice: ath11k/IPQ6018/hw1.0/Notice.txt ... File: ath11k/QCA6390/hw2.0/m3.bin Version: WLAN.HST.1.0.1-01740-QCAHSTSWPLZ_V2_TO_X86-1 Notice: ath11k/QCA6390/hw2.0/Notice.txt Licence: Redistributable. See LICENSE.QualcommAtheros_ath10k for details In other words, there would be only a single "License:" line and one "Notice:" line for each firmware version? The license itself (i.e., LICENSE.QualcommAtheros_ath10k) is same for all the versions while the set of notices (i.e., those notice.txt files) can be different based on what is included in the particular build. > > I'm still working on your other comment about notice.txt, will get back > > on that later. This part about clearly identifying the files should be clear now, but it would be good to resolve that part about the notice.txt files in general before sending out an updated pull request. -- Jouni Malinen PGP id EFC895FA
