From: Luis R. Rodriguez <hidden> Date: 2015-05-14 17:58:26
From: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <redacted>
Firmware licenses on linux-firmware should include an implicit
or explicit patent grant to end users for full device operation
otherwise it would start making linux-firmware useless for many
Linux distributions which have positions against patent encumbered
software [0] [1] [2] and it would mean cherry picking firmware files
out. It can also mean making it problematic to redistribute linux-firmware
in some jurisdictions which could have different positions on
patents, or have already outlawed software patents.
Licenses with implicit patent grants are allowed given that otherwise
we couldn't carry permissively licensed firmwares which would be silly,
but using permissively licensed firmware files which remove patent
grants explicitly are not allowed.
A clarifications is needed as one attempt was already made to include
firmware encumbered by patents without a grant [3] and it was decided
we would not allow these. We clarify this to make this requirement
explicit and prevent these type of further attempts.
[0] https://www.debian.org/legal/patent
[1] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Software_Patents#Red_Hat.27s_position_on_Software_Patents
[2] http://www.openinventionnetwork.com/about-us/
[3] https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/3/14/182
Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org
Cc: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Luis R. Rodriguez <redacted>
---
This patch is unmodified, the discussion over it was brief [0] but I didn't
hear back from Alan on this. Sending again now that we have a new active
linux-firmware maintainer.
[0] https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/6/27/448
README | 5 ++++-
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
@@ -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.
From: Arend van Spriel <hidden> Date: 2015-05-14 18:29:55
On 05/14/15 19:56, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
quoted hunk
From: "Luis R. Rodriguez"<redacted>
Firmware licenses on linux-firmware should include an implicit
or explicit patent grant to end users for full device operation
otherwise it would start making linux-firmware useless for many
Linux distributions which have positions against patent encumbered
software [0] [1] [2] and it would mean cherry picking firmware files
out. It can also mean making it problematic to redistribute linux-firmware
in some jurisdictions which could have different positions on
patents, or have already outlawed software patents.
Licenses with implicit patent grants are allowed given that otherwise
we couldn't carry permissively licensed firmwares which would be silly,
but using permissively licensed firmware files which remove patent
grants explicitly are not allowed.
A clarifications is needed as one attempt was already made to include
firmware encumbered by patents without a grant [3] and it was decided
we would not allow these. We clarify this to make this requirement
explicit and prevent these type of further attempts.
[0] https://www.debian.org/legal/patent
[1] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Software_Patents#Red_Hat.27s_position_on_Software_Patents
[2] http://www.openinventionnetwork.com/about-us/
[3] https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/3/14/182
Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org
Cc: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Luis R. Rodriguez<redacted>
---
This patch is unmodified, the discussion over it was brief [0] but I didn't
hear back from Alan on this. Sending again now that we have a new active
linux-firmware maintainer.
[0] https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/6/27/448
README | 5 ++++-
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
@@ -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
Just nitpicking here, but there is 'license' and 'licence' being used
here. Better stick to one and preferably 'license'.
Regards,
Arend
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.
@@ -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
Just nitpicking here, but there is 'license' and 'licence' being used here.
Better stick to one and preferably 'license'.
On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 01:18:14PM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
quoted
quoted
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
Just nitpicking here, but there is 'license' and 'licence' being used here.
Better stick to one and preferably 'license'.
Fixed, will submit a v2.
Heh, it doesn't help that we now have LICENSE.* and LICENCE.* in the
tree as well. :/ I believe, at least in my Commonwealth english, that
licence is the file, and license is the action of licensing. I should
probably rename the LICENSE.* files in the tree to match.
--Kyle