Re: autobuild of tegrarcm

[Marc Dietrich <marvin24-Mmb7MZpHnFY@public.gmane.org>]

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.


[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