On Friday, December 23, 2016 6:12:35 PM CET igor.mitsyanko.os@quantenna.com wrote:

From: Igor Mitsyanko <imitsyanko@quantenna.com>

QSR10G is Quantenna's 8x8, 160M, 11ac WiFi card.

Signed-off-by: Kamlesh Rath <redacted>
Signed-off-by: Sergey Matyukevich <redacted>
Signed-off-by: Avinash Patil <redacted>
Signed-off-by: Igor Mitsyanko <redacted>
---
This is an RFC patch that we sent to linux-wireless mailing list a while ago,
and it spawned a discussion regarding whether GPL sources has to be submitted
together with this firmware. We would like to clarify with linux-firmware maintainers
to understnad what should be our actions to allow this to be accepted.
- firmware contains GPL components;
- LICENCE file states that sources for GPL components will be provided on request
to oslegal@quantenna.com

There was an opinion that it is not enough: precedent case like this with carl9170
firmware was resolved by submitting GPL sources into linux-firmware repository
itself.

The ar9170-usb firmware was released as GPL v2.0 from the get-go.
<http://git.sipsolutions.net/ar9170-fw.git/commit/GPL?id=2e3574ce10c74a82047a06b046855de14d969948>

And this was never a problem. What is THE PROBLEM though:
"if all the patches from ar9170fw to carl9170fw and beyond (i.e new versions)
have to be added to linux-firmware.git." Or not.

That's why there was never a update to the carl9170fw.
So be prepared for this scenario too.

Does the same applies to qsr10g firmware?

The SDK that we use to build it is quite heavy (> 100MB, but with toolchain). 
Maybe we can take another approach to place SDK separately on Quantenna website
(as a compressed archive), and add a link in linux-firmware?

Yes, I would like to know this as well.

Regards,
Christian