Re: autobuild of tegrarcm

Re: autobuild of tegrarcm

[Marc Dietrich]

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

Re: autobuild of tegrarcm

[Stephen Warren]

[-- 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
>

RE: autobuild of tegrarcm

[Eric Brower]

Just getting to this-- I'll follow-up with Marc offline.

Thanks,
Eric

--
nvpublic

> -----Original Message-----
> From: linux-tegra-owner@vger.kernel.org [mailto:linux-tegra-
> owner@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Stephen Warren
> Sent: Monday, July 28, 2014 8:25 AM
> To: Marc Dietrich; Philipp Kern; Allen Martin
> Cc: nonfree@release.debian.org; Julian Andres Klode;
> dktrkranz@debian.org; ftpmaster@debian.org; linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: autobuild of tegrarcm
> 
> 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@vger.kernel.org More
> majordomo
> > info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> >
> 
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-tegra" in the
> body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at
> http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html