Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 3/3] ath10k: add firmware files | From | Ben Hutchings <> | Date | Sun, 16 Mar 2014 18:57:10 +0000 |
| |
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@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.
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. 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.
Ben.
-- Ben Hutchings Computers are not intelligent. They only think they are. [unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature] | |