Hi Jon,

[ cc'd everyone back in on the assumption private mail was accidental ]


On 03/04/2016 12:21 AM, Jon Masters wrote:

Top posting - in transit currently

Peter,

I would like to understand what concrete action you feel is needed in
order to be comfortable with adding SPCR support to the Linux
kernel?

To clarify for others - this thread pertains to perceived issues with
the license of a document describing the format of the SPCR, a
document whose license was explicitly changed in response to previous
concerns raised by yourself, not the code that actually implements
SPCR support.

Not exactly, because there is no such thing as patenting a document.

The specification purports that patents apply to implementations of
SPCR, and grants rights to those patents under two optional licenses.

What I want is what is expected of any submitter to the Linux Kernel:
that the submitter has the legal right to do so as spelled out
in the Developer's Certificate of Origin (the text of which is in
Documentation/SubmittingPatches).

To have the legal right to submit material to which patents apply
requires a license.

So either
A) the submission does not infringe, and no patent license is required, or
B) the submission requires a patent license because otherwise it would
infringe.

If A, what I would like to see is the due diligence as to why the
submission does not infringe.

If B, FSF maintains an online list of GPL compatible licenses.
Neither of the two licenses offered are on the FSF online list.

The FSF also maintains a compliance lab and will render opinions on
the GPL compatibility of a license. They can be reached at
licensing at fsf.org

Alternatively, a statement from Linux Foundation that this
has been discussed and agreed upon privately is also fine.

Alternatively, any sign-off from ARM, Linaro or Red Hat legal that either
a) one of those licenses is GPL compatible, or
b) the submission does not infringe on the purported patents (and why)

However you retain the opinion that the license under which the table
is published "is not GPL compatible". So under what license would you
like to see this table specification released?

Assuming none of the options above is acceptable, any license in the
"GPL-Compatible Free Software Licenses" listed here:

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#GPLCompatibleLicenses

Jon.

-- Computer Architect | Sent from my 64-bit #ARM Powered phone

quoted

quoted

On Mar 4, 2016, at 05:08, Peter Hurley [off-list ref] wrote:

Hi Al,

Somehow your email was filtered. Apologies for that.

quoted

quoted

On 02/10/2016 03:39 PM, Al Stone wrote:

quoted

quoted

On 01/27/2016 05:17 AM, Aleksey Makarov wrote:

quoted

quoted

On 01/25/2016 07:11 PM, Peter Hurley wrote:

quoted

quoted

On 01/25/2016 03:45 AM, Aleksey Makarov wrote:
This patchset is based on the patchset by Leif Lindholm [1]

'ARM Server Base Boot Requirements' [2] mention SPCR 
(Serial Port Console Redirection Table) [3] as a mandatory
ACPI table that specifies the configuration of serial console.

Licensing concerns have prevented implementing it in the past, but as of
10 August 2015, these tables have both been released also under 
OWF 1.0 [4].

This license has a patent retaliation provision, which makes it
incompatible with GPLv2.

*If the license applies to this code*, then this patch set does not
meet the criteria for submission.

The license applies not to this code but to the document describing the tables.

Just for the record, the SPCR table struct definition has been part
of the Linux kernel since at least commit b24aad44 on 2009-07-24
(line 1112 of include/acpi/actbl2.h) -- or so git blame tells me.

Just to be clear here:

The Microsoft specification, which defines the SPCR table struct and which
this patch series relies on, notes that patents apply. Specifically, it
says:

Patent Notice:
Microsoft is making certain patent rights available for implementations of this specification under two options:
1)  Microsoft?s Community Promise, available at http://www.microsoft.com/openspecifications/en/us/programs/community-promise/default.aspx; or
2)  The Open Web Foundation Final Specification Agreement Version 1.0 ("OWF 1.0") as of October 1, 2012, available at http://www.openwebfoundation.org/legal/the-owf-1-0-agreements/owfa-1-0. 
Version 1.03 ? August 10, 2015

I don't believe either of those patent licenses are GPL compatible.

Unless you're saying Red Hat is signing off on this?

Regards,
Peter Hurley