[Buildroot] [PATCH] pkg-infra: produce legal info for proprietary packages

Luca Ceresoli list at lucaceresoli.net
Sat Oct 20 20:51:00 UTC 2012


Richard Braun wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 02, 2012 at 03:41:38PM +0200, Luca Ceresoli wrote:
>> intel-microcode is clearly not fitting any of the two categories: we want to
>> describe its license, but we are not allowed to redistribute it freely, as
>> the license text reported from Richard seems to signify.
> Actually, there is a license text embedded in the microcode file. It
> reads :
>
> Redistribution. Redistribution and use in binary form, without modification, are
> permitted provided that the following conditions are met:
>         .Redistributions must reproduce the above copyright notice and the following
> disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the
> distribution.
>         .Neither the name of Intel Corporation nor the names of its suppliers may be used
> to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior
> written permission.
>         .No reverse engineering, decompilation, or disassembly of this software is
> permitted.
>         ."Binary form" includes any format commonly used for electronic conveyance
> which is a reversible, bit-exact translation of binary representation to ASCII or
> ISO text, for example, "uuencode."

This in confusing. In your previous e-mail dated Sep 20you quoted the
"Intel Software License Agreement", that one is supposed to accept before
downloading the package from the web page:

> "OEM LICENSE: You may reproduce and distribute the Software only as an
> integral part of or incorporated in Your product or as a standalone
> Software maintenance update for existing end users of Your products,
> excluding any other standalone products,
(http://downloadcenter.intel.com/confirm.aspx?httpDown=http://downloadmirror.intel.com/21385/eng/microcode-20120606.tgz&lang=eng&Dwnldid=21385&keyword=microcode)

This means we cannot redistribute the code, except as part of a product.

OTOH in the downloaded file, that one may simply download at
http://downloadmirror.intel.com/21385/eng/microcode-20120606.tgz without
accepting any agreement, contains the (different) license that you're
quoting right now, which would permit redistribution.

I used to think big companies can afford good lawyers, but this does not
seem to be happening at Intel.

> The disclaimer is a common 'this software is distributed "as is"'
> notice.
>
>
> I'm not exactly sure what "redistribute it freely" means here, since I'm
> much more used to free licenses, but it seems to me that redistribution
> is actually allowed as buildroot isn't in any way violating any of these
> conditions, as long as this text appears in the list of licenses, which
> my patch takes care of.
>
> Do you agree with that, and if yes, how would that change the rework
> proposal ?

I agree with your interpretation of the license in the .dat file, although
this does not clarify whether the applicable text is the Agreement on
the web page or this one license.

In both cases I don't think my proposal needs to be changed. The principle
is still true: one package may be redistributable or not. If it is not,
one may still want to describe its license in the _LICENSE variable with a
more descriptive text than "PROPRIETARY".

What hurts me a little is that, if intel-microcode turns out to be
redistributable, we would have no use case in mainline Buildroot that
makes use of such a feature to the legal-info code.
But I would go on and implement it anyway, since it could be useful to
other Buildroot users and not hurt the other ones.

Luca




More information about the buildroot mailing list