On Fri, 08 Jul 2005 01:59:25 +0200, Francesco Poli wrote: > On Thu, 07 Jul 2005 15:13:47 -0400 Andres Salomon wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> QLogic just emailed me the wording of their new license for qla2xxx >> firmware. > > Good, thanks for dealing with this issue! :) > >> Please let me know if anyone sees problems with this. >> >> >> Copyright (C) 2003 â2005 QLogic Corporation [QLA2x00] >> >> This program includes a device driver for Linux 2.6.x that is >> distributed with QLogic hardware specific firmware binary file. You >> may modify and redistribute the device driver code under the GNU >> Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation (version 2 >> or a later version) and/or under the following terms, as applicable: > [conditions picked from a 3-clause BSD license follow, but with a > modified disclaimer] > > First of all, it's the "GNU General Public License", otherwise they're > referring to a non-existent license... ;-) >
Yea, someone else caught that as well; I emailed them about it. > Then a question: this looks like dual licensing the work under > GPLv2 / 3-clause-BSD. > Why not just a 3-clause BSD license? > It's simple, DFGS-free and GPL-compatible. Adding an optional GPL seems > to be a no-op... > It still won't be DFSG-free, since the source code is not available. I suspect they went with a modified 3-clause BSD because their lawyers wanted additional protection. The reason for the dual licensing is because they have OEMs that would need to re-qualify (that may be the incorrect wording, I forget what they said, and it was a phone conversation so it's not in an inbox anywhere) the driver if the license changes. That's a pain for everyone involved, and would take several months. So, by dual-licensing, the OEMs can continue using the driver and firmware under the GPL (invalid or not), while we (Debian) can choose to use it under a BSD-alike license. > Finally, what are we talking about? ;-) Is this the license for the > driver? > Or rather for the firmware? > Or for both? I'm hoping for both. I've asked them to change it to explicitly mention that the license refers to the firmware as well. > It's not clear to me, I apologize: first they say "program = driver + > firmware", then they seemingly give permissions for the driver only. > Where are the permissions granted for the firmware? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
