Thanks, Johannes.

To clarify with you and Kalle, as persons involved with linux-wireless: 
is my understanding correct that submitting firmware into linux-fimware 
repository is a prerequisite to accepting new driver into linux-wireless?

There is an option to start Quantenna device from internal flash memory, 
no external binary files involved. If we will introduce this 
functionality and remove code handling external firmware for now (until 
firmware problem resolved), would that allow driver to be reviewed/accepted?

On 11/11/2016 02:35 PM, Johannes Berg wrote:

Adding linux-firmware people to Cc, since presumably they don't
necessarily read linux-wireless...

quoted

Johannes, from that perspective, who are the "redistributors"?
Specifically, is linux-firmware git repository considered a
redistributor or its just hosting files? I mean, at what moment
someone else other then Quantenna will start to be legally obliged to
make GPL code used in firmware available for others?

Look, I don't know. I'd assume people who ship it, like any regular
distro, would be (re)distributors thereof. "Normal" (non-GPL) firmware
images come with a redistribution license, but that obviously can't
work here.

There's some info from Ben here regarding the carl9170 case:
http://lkml.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1605.3/01176.html

quoted

Personally I still hope that linux-firmware itself is not legally
concerned with what is the content of firmware its hosting, but looks
like there already was a precedent case  with carl9170 driver and
we have to somehow deal with it.

That's really all I wanted to bring up. I'm not involved with the
linux-firmware git tree.

quoted

There still may be a difference though: Quantenna is semiconductor
company only, software
used on actual products based on Quantenna chipsets is released by
other
companies.
I just want to present our legal team with a clear case (and position
of
Linux maintainers) so that they can
work with it and make decision on how to proceed.

  From technical perspective, as I mentioned, SDK is quite huge and
include a lot of opensource
components including full Linux, I don't think its reasonable to have
it
inside linux-firmware tree.
What are the options to share it other then providing it on request
basis:
- git repository
- store tarball somewhere on official website

Clearly that wasn't deemed appropriate for carl9170, so I don't see why
it'd be different here.

johannes