Re: [PATCH 3/3] ath10k: add firmware files
From: Ben Hutchings
Date: Sun Mar 16 2014 - 14:57:52 EST
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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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.
Computers are not intelligent. They only think they are.
Description: This is a digitally signed message part