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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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@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.
> 
> 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 ?