GPL inconsistency in arch/ppc/ocp/xlinx/

GPL inconsistency in arch/ppc/ocp/xlinx/

[Christoph Hellwig]

Hi Armin,

you seem to have added the the directory in the topic to the LinuxPPC
trees.  Unfortunately they have a license consitency that basically
makes them illegal to distribute, they claim to be under GPL but have
the following notice:

*     Xilinx products are not intended for use in life support appliances,
*     devices, or systems. Use in such applications are expressly prohibited.

Could you please contact Xilinc to clarify the license and/or remove
those files from the tree?  Thanks.

** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/

Re: GPL inconsistency in arch/ppc/ocp/xlinx/

[Paul Mackerras]

Christoph Hellwig writes:

> you seem to have added the the directory in the topic to the LinuxPPC
> trees.  Unfortunately they have a license consitency that basically
> makes them illegal to distribute, they claim to be under GPL but have
> the following notice:
>
> *     Xilinx products are not intended for use in life support appliances,
> *     devices, or systems. Use in such applications are expressly prohibited.
>
> Could you please contact Xilinc to clarify the license and/or remove
> those files from the tree?  Thanks.

It would depend on whether those files are a "Xilinx product" or not.
I would take that statement as normally applying to the hardware they
produce (i.e. their FPGAs).  I agree it needs to be clarified though.

I also notice that their statement in upper case just above that says
that you are responsible for obtaining any rights you may require for
your implementation, which could be seen as conflicting with the
patent grant section of the GPL.

Armin, could you ask Xilinx if they would mind clarifying these two
points?  Perhaps they could add a statement saying that if any of
those terms conflict with the GPL then the GPL is to prevail - although,
the best thing would be to remove the extra paragraphs, since the GPL
covers the disclaimer of warranty, patent concerns, etc. already.

Paul.

** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/

Re: GPL inconsistency in arch/ppc/ocp/xlinx/

[Christoph Hellwig]

On Sat, May 24, 2003 at 10:12:13PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> Hi Armin,
>
> you seem to have added the the directory in the topic to the LinuxPPC
> trees.  Unfortunately they have a license consitency that basically
> makes them illegal to distribute, they claim to be under GPL but have
> the following notice:
>
> *     Xilinx products are not intended for use in life support appliances,
> *     devices, or systems. Use in such applications are expressly prohibited.
>
> Could you please contact Xilinc to clarify the license and/or remove
> those files from the tree?  Thanks.

As there hasn't been any answer yet I think these files should be
remove to ensure the linuxppc tree is legally distributable.

** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/

Re: GPL inconsistency in arch/ppc/ocp/xlinx/

[Larry McVoy]

On Thu, Jun 12, 2003 at 10:32:05PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>
> On Sat, May 24, 2003 at 10:12:13PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > Hi Armin,
> >
> > you seem to have added the the directory in the topic to the LinuxPPC
> > trees.  Unfortunately they have a license consitency that basically
> > makes them illegal to distribute, they claim to be under GPL but have
> > the following notice:
> >
> > *     Xilinx products are not intended for use in life support appliances,
> > *     devices, or systems. Use in such applications are expressly prohibited.
> >
> > Could you please contact Xilinc to clarify the license and/or remove
> > those files from the tree?  Thanks.
>
> As there hasn't been any answer yet I think these files should be
> remove to ensure the linuxppc tree is legally distributable.

Note: I don't care one way or the other how or if this is resolved.  I'm
just making an observation.

You might want to be careful about advertising why you want these files
removed because the Xilinx clause is just covering their butt.  If someone
uses Linux in some life support system and someone dies, the fact that
the community removed these files because of that clause could be construed
as a statement that Linux was suitable for life support systems.  It gives
the lawyers ammo.

Personally, I wouldn't get that excited about that clause, I think that
enforcing the GPL to that extent on principle is likely to backfire.  But
that's my opinion and worth what you paid for it.

Neither I nor BitMover have any sort of relationship with Xilinx, this is
just my opinion.
--
---
Larry McVoy              lm at bitmover.com          http://www.bitmover.com/lm

** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/

Re: GPL inconsistency in arch/ppc/ocp/xlinx/

[Giuliano Pochini]

On 12-Jun-2003 Larry McVoy wrote:
> You might want to be careful about advertising why you want these files
> removed because the Xilinx clause is just covering their butt.  If someone
> uses Linux in some life support system and someone dies, the fact that
> the community removed these files because of that clause could be construed
> as a statement that Linux was suitable for life support systems.  It gives
> the lawyers ammo.

I don't think so. GPL says "WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY".


Bye.


** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/

Re: GPL inconsistency in arch/ppc/ocp/xlinx/

[Christoph Hellwig]

On Thu, Jun 12, 2003 at 01:44:44PM -0700, Larry McVoy wrote:
> You might want to be careful about advertising why you want these files
> removed because the Xilinx clause is just covering their butt.  If someone
> uses Linux in some life support system and someone dies, the fact that
> the community removed these files because of that clause could be construed
> as a statement that Linux was suitable for life support systems.  It gives
> the lawyers ammo.

The issue is not what you, I or Xilinx think is a good idea to do with
the code, the issue is that the GPL doesn't allow to further restrict
the rights it gives.


** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/

Re: GPL inconsistency in arch/ppc/ocp/xlinx/

[Matt Porter]

On Thu, Jun 12, 2003 at 10:32:05PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>
> On Sat, May 24, 2003 at 10:12:13PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > Hi Armin,
> >
> > you seem to have added the the directory in the topic to the LinuxPPC
> > trees.  Unfortunately they have a license consitency that basically
> > makes them illegal to distribute, they claim to be under GPL but have
> > the following notice:
> >
> > *     Xilinx products are not intended for use in life support appliances,
> > *     devices, or systems. Use in such applications are expressly prohibited.
> >
> > Could you please contact Xilinc to clarify the license and/or remove
> > those files from the tree?  Thanks.
>
> As there hasn't been any answer yet I think these files should be
> remove to ensure the linuxppc tree is legally distributable.

Multiple people have found that Armin in no longer answering linuxppc
related email so this doesn't really mean anything...he's disappeared
from the community.  I'll query a couple folks in mvista, I would
have thought the "right" person would see this here.

Regards,
--
Matt Porter
mporter@kernel.crashing.org

** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/

Re: GPL inconsistency in arch/ppc/ocp/xlinx/

[Christoph Hellwig]

On Thu, Jun 12, 2003 at 01:45:19PM -0700, Matt Porter wrote:
> Multiple people have found that Armin in no longer answering linuxppc
> related email so this doesn't really mean anything...he's disappeared
> from the community.  I'll query a couple folks in mvista, I would
> have thought the "right" person would see this here.

Well, the original post went to linuxppc-dev, too where other mvista
folks are subscribed.  Really, the problem is that due to this the
linuxppc tree isn't distributable in a strictly legaleese sense so
I'd really epect some more action from mvista.

If this isn't solved by the end of thise week I'll submit a patch
to remove these files to Paul.

** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/

Re: GPL inconsistency in arch/ppc/ocp/xlinx/

[Tom Rini]

On Sun, Jun 15, 2003 at 07:41:53PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:

>
> On Thu, Jun 12, 2003 at 01:45:19PM -0700, Matt Porter wrote:
> > Multiple people have found that Armin in no longer answering linuxppc
> > related email so this doesn't really mean anything...he's disappeared
> > from the community.  I'll query a couple folks in mvista, I would
> > have thought the "right" person would see this here.
>
> Well, the original post went to linuxppc-dev, too where other mvista
> folks are subscribed.

... which is why someone told Peter to start with.  But, if you can't
remove the offending line, neither can anyone at mvista, regardless of
the hat they are wearing.

> Really, the problem is that due to this the
> linuxppc tree isn't distributable in a strictly legaleese sense so
> I'd really epect some more action from mvista.

True.  But this isn't evil proprietary code, it's GPL with a standard
for the embedded world clause about life support systems.  As an aside,
would the GPL prevent a big sticker on the box saying "Don't use me in
life support systems" ?  My (alibiet biased) take is that it's intended
along those lines.  From an otherwise good-faith effort.

> If this isn't solved by the end of thise week I'll submit a patch
> to remove these files to Paul.

Please don't.  Paul is aware of the issue, and aware that Xilinx has
been notified.  If things aren't moving at a pace of his liking, he can
remove it.

--
Tom Rini
http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/

** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/

Re: GPL inconsistency in arch/ppc/ocp/xlinx/

[Tom Rini]

On Thu, Jun 12, 2003 at 10:32:05PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>
> On Sat, May 24, 2003 at 10:12:13PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> >
> > you seem to have added the the directory in the topic to the
> > LinuxPPC trees. Unfortunately they have a license consitency that
> > basically makes them illegal to distribute, they claim to be under
> > GPL but have the following notice:
> >
> > *     Xilinx products are not intended for use in life support
> > *     appliances, devices, or systems. Use in such applications are
> > *     expressly prohibited.
> >
> > Could you please contact Xilinc to clarify the license and/or remove
> > those files from the tree? Thanks.
>
> As there hasn't been any answer yet I think these files should be
> remove to ensure the linuxppc tree is legally distributable.

I think you should ask someone responsible first.  And on the correct
mailing list as well.  Armin is not responsible for this code, Scott
Anderson is.  Armin just put it into the linuxppc-2.5 tree.  Second,
Peter Ryser (who handles the Xilinx side of things) is on the
linuxppc-embedded list, where most of the 4xx people are.  Finally,
Peter knows about this, and last I knew was talking to their legal
department.  Peter, any news on this?

--
Tom Rini
http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/

** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/

Re: GPL inconsistency in arch/ppc/ocp/xlinx/

[Christoph Hellwig]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain; charset=unknown-8bit, Size: 967 bytes --]


On Thu, Jun 12, 2003 at 01:55:23PM -0700, Tom Rini wrote:
> I think you should ask someone responsible first.  And on the correct
> mailing list as well.  Armin is not responsible for this code, Scott
> Anderson is.  Armin just put it into the linuxppc-2.5 tree.

Well, thanks for this explanation, you might aswell have answered when
I posted thiß to the linuxppc list the first time.  But neither of this
is guessable, the only info I had is that Armin commited it..

> Second,
> Peter Ryser (who handles the Xilinx side of things) is on the
> linuxppc-embedded list, where most of the 4xx people are.  Finally,
> Peter knows about this, and last I knew was talking to their legal
> department.  Peter, any news on this?

Yeah, I think it's _really_ time we get any update on this.  Guys,
remember that this renders the linuxppc tree undistributable in
strong legaleese so you'd better care.

** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/

Re: GPL inconsistency in arch/ppc/ocp/xlinx/

[Tom Rini]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain; charset=unknown-8bit, Size: 1961 bytes --]


On Sun, Jun 15, 2003 at 07:47:14PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:

> On Thu, Jun 12, 2003 at 01:55:23PM -0700, Tom Rini wrote:
> > I think you should ask someone responsible first.  And on the correct
> > mailing list as well.  Armin is not responsible for this code, Scott
> > Anderson is.  Armin just put it into the linuxppc-2.5 tree.
>
> Well, thanks for this explanation, you might aswell have answered when
> I posted thiß to the linuxppc list the first time.  But neither of this
> is guessable, the only info I had is that Armin commited it..

I thought you had seen the msg I left for you on IRC.  Either way, lets
try this again (and this could probably use being thrown up somewhere in
general even):

Welcome to the wonderful world of the ppc32 kernel.  By and large, code
has (and in some cases, still is :( ) started off first, and kept more
up to date in the linuxppc_2_4_devel tree (see
http://penguinppc.org/dev/kernel.shtml) for any platform that is not a
PowerMac.  Similarly, discussion of most development issues, for
non-powermacs, takes place on the linuxppc-embedded@lists.linuxppc.org
list.  For pmacs, things seem to be spread over debian-powerpc, (quite
probably) the yellowdog users list, and to a lesser extent, the
linuxppc-users list as well.

> > Second,
> > Peter Ryser (who handles the Xilinx side of things) is on the
> > linuxppc-embedded list, where most of the 4xx people are.  Finally,
> > Peter knows about this, and last I knew was talking to their legal
> > department.  Peter, any news on this?
>
> Yeah, I think it's _really_ time we get any update on this.  Guys,
> remember that this renders the linuxppc tree undistributable in
> strong legaleese so you'd better care.

Personally, I don't think it's a big deal, so long as it doesn't get
dropped on the floor, but it does need to be resolved.

--
Tom Rini
http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/

** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/

Re: GPL inconsistency in arch/ppc/ocp/xlinx/

[Peter Ryser]

I'm working with our legal departement on straightening the licensing issues
out. Our intention is to distribute the source code under GPL. Most likely, we
will remove

*     Xilinx products are not intended for use in life support
*     appliances, devices, or systems. Use in such applications are
*     expressly prohibited.

without replacement.

- Peter


Tom Rini wrote:

> On Thu, Jun 12, 2003 at 10:32:05PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, May 24, 2003 at 10:12:13PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > >
> > > you seem to have added the the directory in the topic to the
> > > LinuxPPC trees. Unfortunately they have a license consitency that
> > > basically makes them illegal to distribute, they claim to be under
> > > GPL but have the following notice:
> > >
> > > *     Xilinx products are not intended for use in life support
> > > *     appliances, devices, or systems. Use in such applications are
> > > *     expressly prohibited.
> > >
> > > Could you please contact Xilinc to clarify the license and/or remove
> > > those files from the tree? Thanks.
> >
> > As there hasn't been any answer yet I think these files should be
> > remove to ensure the linuxppc tree is legally distributable.
>
> I think you should ask someone responsible first.  And on the correct
> mailing list as well.  Armin is not responsible for this code, Scott
> Anderson is.  Armin just put it into the linuxppc-2.5 tree.  Second,
> Peter Ryser (who handles the Xilinx side of things) is on the
> linuxppc-embedded list, where most of the 4xx people are.  Finally,
> Peter knows about this, and last I knew was talking to their legal
> department.  Peter, any news on this?
>
> --
> Tom Rini
> http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/
>


** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/