Message-ID: <56D9EA2F.7090201@hurleysoftware.com>
Date:	Fri, 4 Mar 2016 12:03:59 -0800
From:	Peter Hurley <peter@...leysoftware.com>
To:	Jon Masters <jcm@...hat.com>
Cc:	linux-acpi <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux ARM Kernel <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	"linux-serial@...r.kernel.org" <linux-serial@...r.kernel.org>,
	Al Stone <ahs3@...hat.com>,
	Aleksey Makarov <aleksey.makarov@...aro.org>,
	Graeme Gregory <graeme.gregory@...aro.org>,
	Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
	Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
	"leif.lindholm@...aro.org" <leif.lindholm@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] ACPI: parse the SPCR table

On 03/04/2016 11:34 AM, Peter Hurley wrote:
> Hi Jon,
> 
> [ cc'd everyone back in on the assumption private mail was accidental ]
> 
> 
> On 03/04/2016 12:21 AM, Jon Masters wrote:
>> Top posting - in transit currently
>>
>> Peter,
>>
>> I would like to understand what concrete action you feel is needed in
>> order to be comfortable with adding SPCR support to the Linux
>> kernel?
>>
>> To clarify for others - this thread pertains to perceived issues with
>> the license of a document describing the format of the SPCR, a
>> document whose license was explicitly changed in response to previous
>> concerns raised by yourself, not the code that actually implements
>> SPCR support.
> 
> Not exactly, because there is no such thing as patenting a document.
> 
> The specification purports that patents apply to implementations of
> SPCR, and grants rights to those patents under two optional licenses.
> 
> What I want is what is expected of any submitter to the Linux Kernel:
> that the submitter has the legal right to do so as spelled out
> in the Developer's Certificate of Origin (the text of which is in
> Documentation/SubmittingPatches).
> 
> To have the legal right to submit material to which patents apply
> requires a license.
> 
> So either
> A) the submission does not infringe, and no patent license is required, or
> B) the submission requires a patent license because otherwise it would
> infringe.
> 
> If A, what I would like to see is the due diligence as to why the
> submission does not infringe.
> 
> If B, FSF maintains an online list of GPL compatible licenses.
> Neither of the two licenses offered are on the FSF online list.
> 
> The FSF also maintains a compliance lab and will render opinions on
> the GPL compatibility of a license. They can be reached at
> licensing@....org
> 
> Alternatively, a statement from Linux Foundation that this
> has been discussed and agreed upon privately is also fine.
> 
> Alternatively, any sign-off from ARM, Linaro or Red Hat legal that either
> a) one of those licenses is GPL compatible, or
> b) the submission does not infringe on the purported patents (and why)
> 
> 
>> However you retain the opinion that the license under which the table
>> is published "is not GPL compatible". So under what license would you
>> like to see this table specification released?
> 
> Assuming none of the options above is acceptable, any license in the
> "GPL-Compatible Free Software Licenses" listed here:
> 
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#GPLCompatibleLicenses

FWIW, my specific concern with both licenses offered by Microsoft
is that both contain a patent retaliation provision.

For example, in the Open Web Foundation OWFa 1.0, Patents and Copyright
Grants:

3.1.2.  Termination.

3.1.2.1.  As a Result of Claims by You.  All rights, grants, and promises made by me to you under this Agreement are terminated if you file, maintain, or voluntarily participate in a lawsuit against me or any person or entity asserting that its Permitted Uses infringe any  Granted Claims you would have had the right to enforce had you signed this Agreement, unless that suit was in response to a corresponding suit first brought against you.


There is no such provision in the GPL.

Note also that Aleksey only refers to the GPL in the submission, and
neither of these other licenses which actually grant the
patent license(s). That's also not ok; file header must include
the necessary licenses for which the submission was made.



>> Jon.
>>
>> -- Computer Architect | Sent from my 64-bit #ARM Powered phone
>>>> On Mar 4, 2016, at 05:08, Peter Hurley <peter@...leysoftware.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Al,
>>>>
>>>> Somehow your email was filtered. Apologies for that.
>>>>
>>>>>> On 02/10/2016 03:39 PM, Al Stone wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 01/27/2016 05:17 AM, Aleksey Makarov 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Just for the record, the SPCR table struct definition has been part
>>>>>> of the Linux kernel since at least commit b24aad44 on 2009-07-24
>>>>>> (line 1112 of include/acpi/actbl2.h) -- or so git blame tells me.
>>>>
>>>> Just to be clear here:
>>>>
>>>> The Microsoft specification, which defines the SPCR table struct and which
>>>> this patch series relies on, notes that patents apply. Specifically, it
>>>> says:
>>>>
>>>> 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. 
>>>> Version 1.03 — August 10, 2015
>>>>
>>>> I don't believe either of those patent licenses are GPL compatible.
>>>>
>>>> Unless you're saying Red Hat is signing off on this?
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Peter Hurley
> 

Powered by blists - more mailing lists