linux-kernel - Re: [PATCHv4 08/13] USB: gadget: g

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-id: <op.vd1g0kcc7p4s8u@pikus>
Date:	Wed, 09 Jun 2010 17:22:58 +0200
From:	Michał Nazarewicz <m.nazarewicz@...sung.com>
To:	Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>
Cc:	Xiaofan Chen <xiaofanc@...il.com>, linux-usb@...r.kernel.org,
	David Brownell <david-b@...bell.net>,
	David Brownell <dbrownell@...rs.sourceforge.net>,
	Kyungmin Park <kyungmin.park@...sung.com>,
	Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHv4 08/13] USB: gadget: g_serial: INF file updated

>> I dunno, obviously I want to make everything according to law to avoid
>> any problems.  Maybe we should contact someone at The Software Freedom
>> Law Center or some similar entity?

On Wed, 09 Jun 2010 16:59:46 +0200, Greg KH <greg@...ah.com> wrote:
> Ick, no, that's not needed here.

Still I had a chat on IRC with a person who knows copyright law rather
well[1] which pointed me to a few things. ;)


> Take the copyright off if this is something that _you_ wrote.  If you
> copied it from somewhere and modified it, say where you copied it from,
> and show the rights that allowed you to copy it.
>
> Where exactly did you get it from originally?

The RNDIS template was taken from:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ff570620.aspx

The CDC ACM was sent by Xiaofan Chen who said that it is probably
taken indirectly form MSDN as well.


The MSDN TOS reads:
> If Microsoft makes any code marked as “sample” available on this
> Web Site without a License Agreement, then that code is licensed
> to you under the terms of the Microsoft Limited Public License.

Where the MLPL can be found at:
<http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/cc300389.aspx#MLPL>.  It seems like
a perfectly legal free software license except point 3(F):

> (F) Platform Limitation- The licenses granted in sections 2(A) & 2(B)
> extend only to the software or derivative works that you create that
> run on a Microsoft Windows operating system product.

Also, 3(D) requires that the whole license is included:
> (D) If you distribute any portion of the software in source code form,
> you may do so only under this license by including a complete copy of
> this license with your distribution. If you distribute any portion of
> the software in compiled or object code form, you may only do so under
> a license that complies with this license.

Therefore, shall we include the license along with the INFs and ignore
the fact it's not fully free software?

_______________________________________________________________________
[1] I'm deliberately not using the word "lawyer" here not I give the
     person's name as to not make an impression that it was a legal
     advice or to make him in any way liable.  This was *not* a legal
     advice.

-- 
Best regards,                                        _     _
| Humble Liege of Serenely Enlightened Majesty of  o' \,=./ `o
| Computer Science,  Michał "mina86" Nazarewicz       (o o)
+----[mina86*mina86.com]---[mina86*jabber.org]----ooO--(_)--Ooo--
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/