From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Richard Braun Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2012 17:42:29 +0200 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH] pkg-infra: produce legal info for proprietary packages In-Reply-To: <506AEF12.5080906@lucaceresoli.net> References: <20120928121758.GA2362@mail.sceen.net> <1348834801-2672-1-git-send-email-rbraun@sceen.net> <20120928142314.4810033e@skate> <20120928190526.79db5cde@skate> <5068558E.4070005@mind.be> <506AEF12.5080906@lucaceresoli.net> Message-ID: <20121016154229.GA15417@mail.sceen.net> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net On Tue, Oct 02, 2012 at 03:41:38PM +0200, Luca Ceresoli wrote: > intel-microcode is clearly not fitting any of the two categories: we want to > describe its license, but we are not allowed to redistribute it freely, as > the license text reported from Richard seems to signify. Actually, there is a license text embedded in the microcode file. It reads : Redistribution. Redistribution and use in binary form, without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met: .Redistributions must reproduce the above copyright notice and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution. .Neither the name of Intel Corporation nor the names of its suppliers may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission. .No reverse engineering, decompilation, or disassembly of this software is permitted. ."Binary form" includes any format commonly used for electronic conveyance which is a reversible, bit-exact translation of binary representation to ASCII or ISO text, for example, "uuencode." The disclaimer is a common 'this software is distributed "as is"' notice. I'm not exactly sure what "redistribute it freely" means here, since I'm much more used to free licenses, but it seems to me that redistribution is actually allowed as buildroot isn't in any way violating any of these conditions, as long as this text appears in the list of licenses, which my patch takes care of. Do you agree with that, and if yes, how would that change the rework proposal ? -- Richard Braun