linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/3] ath10k: add firmware files

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <1394996230.15764.113.camel@deadeye.wl.decadent.org.uk>
Date:	Sun, 16 Mar 2014 18:57:10 +0000
From:	Ben Hutchings <ben@...adent.org.uk>
To:	"Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...not-panic.com>
Cc:	Kalle Valo <kvalo@....qualcomm.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
	linux-wireless <linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org>,
	ath10k@...ts.infradead.org,
	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] ath10k: add firmware files

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@....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.

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (812 bytes)