Re: autobuild of tegrarcm

[Stephen Warren <swarren-3lzwWm7+Weoh9ZMKESR00Q@public.gmane.org>]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed, Size: 5945 bytes --]

On 07/28/2014 02:03 AM, Marc Dietrich wrote:
> added tegra ml, tegra maintainer, and tegrarcm maintainer.
>
> I think the license isn't appropriete for this software at all. See my notes
> regarding this here [1]. So lets take the chance and ping nvidia again on this
> issue.

I'll ask Eric to comment on this again, although please note that he's 
out on vacation this week.

That is, unless Allen has any comment?

> [1] http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-tegra/msg11945.html
>
> Am Sonntag, 27. Juli 2014, 20:23:20 schrieb Philipp Kern:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 09:55:20PM +0200, Marc Dietrich wrote:
>>> On Sun, 12 May 2013, Philipp Kern wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 11:31:21AM +0200, Marc Dietrich wrote:
>>>>> The proprietary license only applies to the binaries included in some
>>>>> header> >
>>>>> files. FYI, here is the license:
>>>> it seems like an oversight: LICENSE says "The files tegra20-miniloader.h
>>>> and tegra30-miniloader.h are provided pursuant to the following license
>>>> agreement". But there is also tegra114-miniloader.h, which bears the
>>>> same "not usable without a specific agreement" header.
>>>
>>> thanks for finding this. I think this can be fixed easily. I'll ask my
>>> NVIDIA contact to update the LICENSE file regarding this.
>>>
>>>> Interestingly NVIDIA tells us in the license that it is "revocable",
>>>> which
>>>> is not the case for the graphics driver one. I presume we're already
>>>> talking about the binary code form here. It does not really make me happy
>>>> that we can only distribute this to sublicensees that agree to be bound
>>>> by the license and to owners of NVIDIA hardware. Both is untrue when
>>>
>>>> looking at buildds. ):
>>> Does the term "revocable" cause problems with the distribution? Does this
>>> mean that users downloading the code (or the binary) must delete it if
>>> NVIDIA tells debian to do so? Of course this is not possbile because we
>>> don't know the identity of the users downloading this code. Also we don't
>>> ask the users to aggree with the license before downloading/running the
>>> program.
>>>
>>> The code in the miniloader files is not run on the machine which runs
>>> tegrarcm. It is run on the target SoC, which is likely Tegra, because all
>>> other SoCs won't run this bootloader. So I think this is more or less
>>> harmless.
>>
>> whenever I go back to this license, I feel bad about it. Adding Luca who
>> accepted it.
>>
>> The graphic driver license clearly exempts Linux from the problematic
>> provisions. The tegra one does not even try. Here's 2.1:
>>
>>   2.1  Rights and Limitations of Grant.  NVIDIA hereby grants to You the
>>   following non-exclusive, non-transferable, revocable right under
>>   NVIDIA’s copyrights to use, copy, distribute and sublicense the
>>   SOFTWARE (solely in binary code form) to Your sublicensees (a) solely
>>   for use in connection with NVIDIA hardware or software products; and
>>   (b) pursuant to the terms and conditions of any form of end-user
>>   software license agreement; provided, that Your sublicensees agree to
>>   be bound by this LICENSE or terms and conditions that are as
>>   protective of NVIDIA’s Intellectual Property Rights in the SOFTWARE as
>>   this LICENSE
>>
>> I'm unsure if the latter part means that the users need to consent before we
>> can offer it (e.g. click-through). Unless we do not actually sublicense.
>> OTOH if we'd sublicense, then the users would not need to destroy copies
>> when we need to.
>>
>> And then there's clause 3:
>>
>>   3.  TERM AND TERMINATION
>>   .
>>   This LICENSE and the licenses granted hereunder shall be effective as
>>   of the date You download the applicable SOFTWARE (“Effective Date”)
>>   and continue for a period of one (1) year (“Initial Term”)
>>   respectively, unless terminated earlier in accordance with the
>>   “Termination” provision of this LICENSE.  Unless either party notifies
>>   the other party of its intent to terminate this LICENSE at least three
>>   (3) months prior to the end of the Initial Term or the applicable
>>   renewal period, this License will be automatically renewed for one (1)
>>   year renewal periods thereafter, unless terminated in accordance with
>>   the “Termination” provision of this LICENSE
>>   .
>>   NVIDIA may terminate this LICENSE at any time if You violate its
>>   terms. Upon termination, You will immediately destroy the SOFTWARE or
>>   return all copies of the SOFTWARE to NVIDIA, and certify to NVIDIA in
>>   writing that such actions have been completed.  Upon termination or
>>   expiration of this LICENSE the license grants to Licensee shall
>>   terminate, except that sublicenses rightfully granted by Licensee
>>   under this LICENSE in connection with Paragraph 2 of this LICENSE
>>   provided by Licensee prior to the termination or expiration of this
>>   LICENSE shall survive in accordance with their respective form of
>>   license terms and conditions.
>>   [...]
>>
>> Do we have a precedent for such a clause? The whole language about one year
>> terms and announcements of termination worries me. That'd mean that
>> someone'd need to monitor NVIDIA's announcements and then request removal
>> from a stable release in time? Or will that only happen towards single
>> users? (I.e. must the notification be direct?)
>>
>> I guess the language about NVIDIA's products can be ok, given that the
>> compiled product is only useful on NVIDIA hardware anyway and will not be
>> executed on buildds…
>>
>> Kind regards
>> Philipp Kern
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-tegra" in
> the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>