linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/3] ACPI: parse the SPCR table

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]

Date:	Wed, 27 Jan 2016 15:17:52 +0300
From:	Aleksey Makarov <aleksey.makarov@...aro.org>
To:	Peter Hurley <peter@...leysoftware.com>, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	linux-serial@...r.kernel.org,
	Graeme Gregory <graeme.gregory@...aro.org>,
	Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	"Rafael J . Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
	Leif Lindholm <leif.lindholm@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] ACPI: parse the SPCR table

On 01/25/2016 07:11 PM, Peter Hurley wrote:
> On 01/25/2016 03:45 AM, Aleksey Makarov wrote:
>> This patchset is based on the patchset by Leif Lindholm [1]
>>
>> 'ARM Server Base Boot Requirements' [2] mention SPCR 
>> (Serial Port Console Redirection Table) [3] as a mandatory
>> ACPI table that specifies the configuration of serial console.
>>
>> Licensing concerns have prevented implementing it in the past, but as of
>> 10 August 2015, these tables have both been released also under 
>> OWF 1.0 [4].
> 
> This license has a patent retaliation provision, which makes it
> incompatible with GPLv2.
> 
> *If the license applies to this code*, then this patch set does not
> meet the criteria for submission.

The license applies not to this code but to the document describing the tables.

Here is an excerpt from it:

  Patent Notice:
  Microsoft is making certain patent rights available for implementations of this specification under two options:
  1)  Microsoft’s Community Promise, available at
  http://www.microsoft.com/openspecifications/en/us/programs/community-promise/default.aspx; or
  2)  The Open Web Foundation Final Specification Agreement Version 1.0 ("OWF 1.0")
  as of October 1, 2012, available at http://www.openwebfoundation.org/legal/the-owf-1-0-agreements/owfa-1-0. 

I believe that it means that the patch set meets the criteria for submission.  Am I right?

Thank you
Aleksey Makarov