[PATCH 3/3] ath10k: add firmware files
Luis R. Rodriguez
mcgrof at do-not-panic.com
Wed Jun 25 08:47:31 PDT 2014
On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 01:17:52PM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 11:57 AM, Ben Hutchings <ben at decadent.org.uk> wrote:
> > On Fri, 2014-03-14 at 05:36 -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> >> On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 1:45 AM, Kalle Valo <kvalo at qca.qualcomm.com> wrote:
> > [...]
> >> > + NO LICENSES OR OTHER RIGHTS,
> >> > +WHETHER EXPRESS, IMPLIED, BASED ON ESTOPPEL OR OTHERWISE, ARE GRANTED
> >> > +TO ANY PARTY'S PATENTS, PATENT APPLICATIONS, OR PATENTABLE INVENTIONS
> >> > +BY VIRTUE OF THIS LICENSE OR THE DELIVERY OR PROVISION BY QUALCOMM
> >> > +ATHEROS, INC. OF THE SOFTWARE.
> >> This -- however is new to linux-firmware -- and I hereby raise a big
> >> red fucking flag. All other licenses on linux-firmware provide at the
> >> very least a limited patent grant. What makes Qualcomm special ?
> > [...]
> > There are several licence texts that don't mention patents at all. I'm
> > assuming that the companies submitting firmware for inclusion in Linux
> > or linux-firmware do intend to grant whatever licences are required to
> > distribute it to end users.
> Agreed, this would be the only fair thing.
> > Several licence texts explicitly exclude patent licences relating to any
> > *other* products of the same company, but that's quite redundant.
> > However this language seems to explicitly exclude *any* patent licence.
> Yeap, they are making it crystal clear.
> > You're right to raise a red flag because, assuming Qualcomm does have
> > patents that cover the firmware alone, this seems to disallow
> > redistribution in whatever jurisdictions those patents apply.
> I'm also fearful of this setting a precedent for other vendors.
<-- snip -->
> To avoid patches as this one should we define some basic guidelines
> for linux-firmware acceptable licenses?
How about this small change to clarify ?
>From b0b9bd8328f797836ce0db6157232d017220594b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof at suse.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2014 08:41:25 -0700
Subject: [PATCH] README: clarify redistribution requirements covering patents
Firmware licenses should include an implicit or explicit
patent grant to end users for full device operation.
Signed-off-by: Luis R. Rodriguez <mcgrof at suse.com>
README | 5 ++++-
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/README b/README
index f2ed92e..d2a56ec 100644
@@ -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
And if it were possible, a changelog of the firmware itself.
More information about the ath10k