We wanted to talk to our lawyer before responding. But I will try to
explain a little bit about how the license works.
The EULA is the license. We do not create the license. That comes from
the legal department. They recently re-did the license scenario so that
instead of having lots of licenses for all Freescale products, there are
just a handful. They are using appendices for different 3rd party
agreements and adding them to the main license. So what we have is the
main license context that doesn't change with a bunch of appendices for
specific things added to it. A lot of these appendices are not
pertinent to our BSP but that is the way it works so we don't have to
have a lot of different licenses. The current license we use is on v6
and we expect a v7 soon. So even though the EULA is not changing as far
as we are concerned, the checksum is going to be changing all the time.
We have been including a copy of the latest EULA in all the Freescale
proprietary packages as we release them, but we don't re-release old
packages every time we release new ones so the checksum on the EULAs
will be different in different packages. So I don't understand how
having just one checksum stored in one place for the EULA is ever going
to work. Or am I not understanding what the patch in question is doing?
Ann Thornton
On 6/3/2015 1:22 PM, Daiane Angolini wrote:
On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 2:19 PM, Lauren Post <[email protected]> wrote:
The current license does that but it is not embedded into the older packages.
Current license evolved from the previous license. We feel comfortable that
users building legacy devices will be covered same as before.
The current patch assumes the license will checksum match the license in the
packages. We don't want to update legacy packages each time the license is
updated. We don't have bandwidth and is not required. The license in legacy
packages matches the license on freescale.com the content was originally
distributed with.
Our licensing usage has evolved to a common license. It will be changed often
to add new 3rd parties to the Appendix. That does not affect previous 3rd
parties.
Every package has the EULA in it so the original EULA stands.
If there is confusion we can create an SCR for the mx53 which is the one that
uses proprietary amd gpu (it uses new license for multimedia and old license
for vpu and gpu).
We also might have future files that do not require updates. We provide an SCR
that lists the version of license associated with each package. We don't want
to rebind every package each time license gets updated.
We understand everyone's concern but this solution is not the right one.
If you want a disclaimer add in the setup-environment one that says the license
in the package is the license that takes precedence.
Lauren,
I haven't understood anything in this discussion. I used to think
about the old EULA as a disclaimer of the complete BSP, but each
package would be released under its own licensing. (the EULA would be
the offline replacement of the click-through agreement we had in
Freescale webpage).
The community has accepted recently one EULA change without
questioning it. Now you are presenting a "legal moving target"
scenario which I sincerely was not able to understand. I mean, I can
understand why you and your team don't want to update every single
released package everytime a new release is published, but what is the
change on legal implications? What is being moving?
We are not lawyers or trusted advisors, we barely understand some
initial copyleft statements, can you, please, elaborate what is EULA
for, what is the change in the packages, what is SCR for and what is
the next changes and how it impacts community and next products? What
is the new file/process similar to the click-trough agreement?
I really want to understand, but it's very difficult from past emails,
can we step back and start from the beginning?
At the end, nobody wants to go to the jail.
Best Regards,
Daiane
Lauren
-----Original Message-----
From: Eric Nelson [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2015 11:46 AM
To: Otavio Salvador; Thornton Ann-RA43240; Post Lauren-RAA013
Cc: [email protected]; Stefan Christ
Subject: Re: [meta-freescale] [PATCH] fsl-eula-unpack: deploy Freescale EULA
Hi Ann and Lauren,
On 06/03/2015 09:15 AM, Otavio Salvador wrote:
On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 11:56 AM, Ann Thornton
<[email protected]> wrote:
Here is the problem: The EULA is updated frequently with changes
that really don't matter to existing packages. New 3rd party
requirements are added that apply to new packages, typos are
occasionally fixed, and so on.
If this patch is limiting us to only one EULA in all packages, that
means all of the older packages have to be updated with new EULAs and
a new version number every few months. That is just not going to
happen. Not to mention other groups that have older packages as
well. The core of the EULA has not changed and will not change (the
legal department has promised us that) so we expect that future EULAs
will be in line with the current ones.
It looks like Stefan is saying that the using LIC_FILES_CHKSUM_append
will override the problem. But we will need to put that in all the
recipes so the end result will nullify this patch, I think.
Ann, we need to separate two issues here:
- technical - legal
I think (Stefan, please confirm) that the reason for this patch has to do with the way
that the EULAs are "accepted" by the user.
The current process involves an acknowledgement of a single "Freescale EULA" in
the setup-environment script.
If there are a dozen Freescale licenses in various packages, do each of them
need to be acked by the user before using them?
If so, can the Freescale legal folks put together an over-arching license that
covers all components? It seems that the EULA is usually re-used and way
broader than most of the patches (including Microsoft, SanDisk, CSR and Global
Locate, which likely don't have rights in most of the covered components).
Please advise,
Eric
--
_______________________________________________
meta-freescale mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/meta-freescale
--
Ann Thornton
/Microcontrollers Software and Applications
Freescale Semiconductors
email: [email protected]/
--
_______________________________________________
meta-freescale mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/meta-freescale
