Re: [PATCH 3/3] ath10k: add firmware files

Re: [PATCH 3/3] ath10k: add firmware files

[Luis R. Rodriguez]

On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 1:45 AM, Kalle Valo <kvalo@qca.qualcomm.com> wrote:
> +* No Reverse engineering, decompiling, decrypting, or disassembling of
> +  this software is permitted.

We have other firmware licenses that have this language already on
linux-firmware but let us also keep in mind that linux-firmware will
likely not only be used by Linux folks.

<-- cut -->

> + NO LICENSES OR OTHER RIGHTS,
> +WHETHER EXPRESS, IMPLIED, BASED ON ESTOPPEL OR OTHERWISE, ARE GRANTED
> +TO ANY PARTY'S PATENTS, PATENT APPLICATIONS, OR PATENTABLE INVENTIONS
> +BY VIRTUE OF THIS LICENSE OR THE DELIVERY OR PROVISION BY QUALCOMM
> +ATHEROS, INC. OF THE SOFTWARE.

This -- however is new to linux-firmware -- and I hereby raise a big
red fucking flag. All other licenses on linux-firmware provide at the
very least a limited patent grant. What makes Qualcomm special ?

> +FOR ANY DIRECT DAMAGES ARISING UNDER OR RESULTING FROM
> +THIS AGREEMENT OR IN CONNECTION WITH ANY USE OF THE SOFTWARE SHALL NOT
> +EXCEED A TOTAL AMOUNT OF US$5.00.

WTF - was this inspired by a Sci-Fi movie?

  Luis

Re: [PATCH 3/3] ath10k: add firmware files

[Dave Taht]

On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 5:36 AM, Luis R. Rodriguez
<mcgrof@do-not-panic.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 1:45 AM, Kalle Valo <kvalo@qca.qualcomm.com> wrote:
>> +* No Reverse engineering, decompiling, decrypting, or disassembling of
>> +  this software is permitted.
>
> We have other firmware licenses that have this language already on
> linux-firmware but let us also keep in mind that linux-firmware will
> likely not only be used by Linux folks.
>
> <-- cut -->
>
>> + NO LICENSES OR OTHER RIGHTS,
>> +WHETHER EXPRESS, IMPLIED, BASED ON ESTOPPEL OR OTHERWISE, ARE GRANTED
>> +TO ANY PARTY'S PATENTS, PATENT APPLICATIONS, OR PATENTABLE INVENTIONS
>> +BY VIRTUE OF THIS LICENSE OR THE DELIVERY OR PROVISION BY QUALCOMM
>> +ATHEROS, INC. OF THE SOFTWARE.
>
> This -- however is new to linux-firmware -- and I hereby raise a big
> red fucking flag. All other licenses on linux-firmware provide at the
> very least a limited patent grant. What makes Qualcomm special ?
>
>> +FOR ANY DIRECT DAMAGES ARISING UNDER OR RESULTING FROM
>> +THIS AGREEMENT OR IN CONNECTION WITH ANY USE OF THE SOFTWARE SHALL NOT
>> +EXCEED A TOTAL AMOUNT OF US$5.00.
>
> WTF - was this inspired by a Sci-Fi movie?

Actually this is awesome. Does this mean I CAN reverse engineer,
decompile, decrypt and dissemble this software?

Where do I send my 5 bucks?

>   Luis
>
> _______________________________________________
> ath10k mailing list
> ath10k@lists.infradead.org
> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/ath10k



-- 
Dave Täht

Re: [PATCH 3/3] ath10k: add firmware files

[Arend van Spriel]

On 03/14/14 13:47, Dave Taht wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 5:36 AM, Luis R. Rodriguez
> <mcgrof@do-not-panic.com>  wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 1:45 AM, Kalle Valo<kvalo@qca.qualcomm.com>  wrote:
>>> +FOR ANY DIRECT DAMAGES ARISING UNDER OR RESULTING FROM
>>> +THIS AGREEMENT OR IN CONNECTION WITH ANY USE OF THE SOFTWARE SHALL NOT
>>> +EXCEED A TOTAL AMOUNT OF US$5.00.
>>
>> WTF - was this inspired by a Sci-Fi movie?
>
> Actually this is awesome. Does this mean I CAN reverse engineer,
> decompile, decrypt and dissemble this software?

I must say I admire your ability to read between bold printed lines 
almost as much as your songs ;-)

> Where do I send my 5 bucks?
>
>>    Luis
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> ath10k mailing list
>> ath10k@lists.infradead.org
>> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/ath10k
>
>
>

Re: [PATCH 3/3] ath10k: add firmware files

[Kalle Valo]

"Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@do-not-panic.com> writes:

> On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 1:45 AM, Kalle Valo <kvalo@qca.qualcomm.com> wrote:
>
>> + NO LICENSES OR OTHER RIGHTS,
>> +WHETHER EXPRESS, IMPLIED, BASED ON ESTOPPEL OR OTHERWISE, ARE GRANTED
>> +TO ANY PARTY'S PATENTS, PATENT APPLICATIONS, OR PATENTABLE INVENTIONS
>> +BY VIRTUE OF THIS LICENSE OR THE DELIVERY OR PROVISION BY QUALCOMM
>> +ATHEROS, INC. OF THE SOFTWARE.
>
> This -- however is new to linux-firmware -- and I hereby raise a big
> red fucking flag. All other licenses on linux-firmware provide at the
> very least a limited patent grant. What makes Qualcomm special ?

Well, I was just told to use this license with our firmware, I didn't
write this.

-- 
Kalle Valo

Re: [PATCH 3/3] ath10k: add firmware files

[Luis R. Rodriguez]

On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 10:07 AM, Kalle Valo <kvalo@qca.qualcomm.com> wrote:
> "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@do-not-panic.com> writes:
>
>> On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 1:45 AM, Kalle Valo <kvalo@qca.qualcomm.com> wrote:
>>
>>> + NO LICENSES OR OTHER RIGHTS,
>>> +WHETHER EXPRESS, IMPLIED, BASED ON ESTOPPEL OR OTHERWISE, ARE GRANTED
>>> +TO ANY PARTY'S PATENTS, PATENT APPLICATIONS, OR PATENTABLE INVENTIONS
>>> +BY VIRTUE OF THIS LICENSE OR THE DELIVERY OR PROVISION BY QUALCOMM
>>> +ATHEROS, INC. OF THE SOFTWARE.
>>
>> This -- however is new to linux-firmware -- and I hereby raise a big
>> red fucking flag. All other licenses on linux-firmware provide at the
>> very least a limited patent grant. What makes Qualcomm special ?
>
> Well, I was just told to use this license with our firmware, I didn't
> write this.

I realize this, back in the day they told me to submit that too, and I
didn't. You are doing what you are told. That doesn't mean we can't
raise questions over this. So pass the questions back onto those
crafty attorneys and let them engage on this public thread and clarify
exactly what they are doing.

 Luis

Re: [PATCH 3/3] ath10k: add firmware files

[Ben Hutchings]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1420 bytes --]

On Fri, 2014-03-14 at 05:36 -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 1:45 AM, Kalle Valo <kvalo@qca.qualcomm.com> wrote:
[...]
> > + NO LICENSES OR OTHER RIGHTS,
> > +WHETHER EXPRESS, IMPLIED, BASED ON ESTOPPEL OR OTHERWISE, ARE GRANTED
> > +TO ANY PARTY'S PATENTS, PATENT APPLICATIONS, OR PATENTABLE INVENTIONS
> > +BY VIRTUE OF THIS LICENSE OR THE DELIVERY OR PROVISION BY QUALCOMM
> > +ATHEROS, INC. OF THE SOFTWARE.
> 
> This -- however is new to linux-firmware -- and I hereby raise a big
> red fucking flag. All other licenses on linux-firmware provide at the
> very least a limited patent grant. What makes Qualcomm special ?
[...]

There are several licence texts that don't mention patents at all.  I'm
assuming that the companies submitting firmware for inclusion in Linux
or linux-firmware do intend to grant whatever licences are required to
distribute it to end users.

Several licence texts explicitly exclude patent licences relating to any
*other* products of the same company, but that's quite redundant.

However this language seems to explicitly exclude *any* patent licence.
You're right to raise a red flag because, assuming Qualcomm does have
patents that cover the firmware alone, this seems to disallow
redistribution in whatever jurisdictions those patents apply.

Ben.

-- 
Ben Hutchings
Computers are not intelligent.	They only think they are.

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 811 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH 3/3] ath10k: add firmware files

[Luis R. Rodriguez]

On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 11:57 AM, Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk> wrote:
> On Fri, 2014-03-14 at 05:36 -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 1:45 AM, Kalle Valo <kvalo@qca.qualcomm.com> wrote:
> [...]
>> > + NO LICENSES OR OTHER RIGHTS,
>> > +WHETHER EXPRESS, IMPLIED, BASED ON ESTOPPEL OR OTHERWISE, ARE GRANTED
>> > +TO ANY PARTY'S PATENTS, PATENT APPLICATIONS, OR PATENTABLE INVENTIONS
>> > +BY VIRTUE OF THIS LICENSE OR THE DELIVERY OR PROVISION BY QUALCOMM
>> > +ATHEROS, INC. OF THE SOFTWARE.
>>
>> This -- however is new to linux-firmware -- and I hereby raise a big
>> red fucking flag. All other licenses on linux-firmware provide at the
>> very least a limited patent grant. What makes Qualcomm special ?
> [...]
>
> There are several licence texts that don't mention patents at all.  I'm
> assuming that the companies submitting firmware for inclusion in Linux
> or linux-firmware do intend to grant whatever licences are required to
> distribute it to end users.

Agreed, this would be the only fair thing.

> Several licence texts explicitly exclude patent licences relating to any
> *other* products of the same company, but that's quite redundant.

Sure.

> However this language seems to explicitly exclude *any* patent licence.

Yeap, they are making it crystal clear.

> You're right to raise a red flag because, assuming Qualcomm does have
> patents that cover the firmware alone, this seems to disallow
> redistribution in whatever jurisdictions those patents apply.

I'm also fearful of this setting a precedent for other vendors. I'll
highlight, as it was discussed in our last Linux wireless summit, with
the way things are going forward for all companies with 802.11 doing
Single Chip designs combining more and more technologies together
(first it was Bluetooth) and moving move towards a big fat firmware
model (worst case Ethernet like 802.11 drivers) the blending will push
a fine line even further as technologies used to the archaic patent
licensing model get combined with technologies that were free of this
crazy ludicrous archaic business model practice. Apart from firmware
architecture in consideration for the technology combinations this
also has implications for open firmware. The division of where
companies are willing to push out open firmware is on the line here.
I'm not only concerned with the removal of open firmware as an option
but also seriously concerned over the quality and *security* of such
firmware, just as I've always been with the quality and security of
proprietary drivers. In the good 'ol Atheros days were able to
innovate with the community on open firmware first with ar9170 which
lead to carl9170.fw, that proved as great proof of concept to open
firmware further up, even with the support of Tensilca on ath9k_htc,
albeit under the Clear BSD License which also explicitly removes any
patent grants. The upstream linux-firmware for ath9k_htc however is
under the old Atheros firmware license which does provide a limited
patent grant. The line was drawn on ath10k...

To avoid patches as this one should we define some basic guidelines
for linux-firmware acceptable licenses?

> Ben.
>
> --
> Ben Hutchings
> Computers are not intelligent.  They only think they are.

For now.

  Luis

Re: [PATCH 3/3] ath10k: add firmware files

[Alex Hacker]

> > +* No Reverse engineering, decompiling, decrypting, or disassembling of
> > +  this software is permitted.

Ups, I did it already... once. So sorry about my offending behaviour.
I never do it again, I promise.

Re: [PATCH 3/3] ath10k: add firmware files

[Luis R. Rodriguez]

On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 01:17:52PM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 11:57 AM, Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk> wrote:
> > On Fri, 2014-03-14 at 05:36 -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> >> On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 1:45 AM, Kalle Valo <kvalo@qca.qualcomm.com> wrote:
> > [...]
> >> > + NO LICENSES OR OTHER RIGHTS,
> >> > +WHETHER EXPRESS, IMPLIED, BASED ON ESTOPPEL OR OTHERWISE, ARE GRANTED
> >> > +TO ANY PARTY'S PATENTS, PATENT APPLICATIONS, OR PATENTABLE INVENTIONS
> >> > +BY VIRTUE OF THIS LICENSE OR THE DELIVERY OR PROVISION BY QUALCOMM
> >> > +ATHEROS, INC. OF THE SOFTWARE.
> >>
> >> This -- however is new to linux-firmware -- and I hereby raise a big
> >> red fucking flag. All other licenses on linux-firmware provide at the
> >> very least a limited patent grant. What makes Qualcomm special ?
> > [...]
> >
> > There are several licence texts that don't mention patents at all.  I'm
> > assuming that the companies submitting firmware for inclusion in Linux
> > or linux-firmware do intend to grant whatever licences are required to
> > distribute it to end users.
> 
> Agreed, this would be the only fair thing.
> 
> > Several licence texts explicitly exclude patent licences relating to any
> > *other* products of the same company, but that's quite redundant.
> 
> Sure.
> 
> > However this language seems to explicitly exclude *any* patent licence.
> 
> Yeap, they are making it crystal clear.
> 
> > You're right to raise a red flag because, assuming Qualcomm does have
> > patents that cover the firmware alone, this seems to disallow
> > redistribution in whatever jurisdictions those patents apply.
> 
> I'm also fearful of this setting a precedent for other vendors.

<-- snip -->

> To avoid patches as this one should we define some basic guidelines
> for linux-firmware acceptable licenses?

How about this small change to clarify ?

>From b0b9bd8328f797836ce0db6157232d017220594b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@suse.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2014 08:41:25 -0700
Subject: [PATCH] README: clarify redistribution requirements covering patents

Firmware licenses should include an implicit or explicit
patent grant to end users for full device operation.

Signed-off-by: Luis R. Rodriguez <mcgrof@suse.com>
---
 README | 5 ++++-
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/README b/README
index f2ed92e..d2a56ec 100644
--- a/README
+++ b/README
@@ -18,7 +18,10 @@ and also cc: to related mailing lists.
 
 Your commit should include an update to the WHENCE file clearly
 identifying the licence under which the firmware is available, and
-that it is redistributable. If the licence is long and involved, it's
+that it is redistributable. Being redistributable includes ensuring
+the firmware license provided includes an implicit or explicit
+patent grant to end users to ensure full functionality of device
+operation with the firmware. If the licence is long and involved, it's
 permitted to include it in a separate file and refer to it from the
 WHENCE file.
 And if it were possible, a changelog of the firmware itself.
-- 
2.0.0