[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160127134559.1065a45f@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2016 13:45:59 +0000
From: One Thousand Gnomes <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To: Aleksey Makarov <aleksey.makarov@...aro.org>
Cc: Peter Hurley <peter@...leysoftware.com>,
linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, 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 Wed, 27 Jan 2016 15:17:52 +0300
Aleksey Makarov <aleksey.makarov@...aro.org> wrote:
> 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?
This is not a forum for legal advice. I would suggest that Linaro
discusses it privately with the Linux Foundation and Linus and does so
under attorney-client privilege. The Linux Foundation does have some
reasons to exist.
Alan
Powered by blists - more mailing lists