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 >