[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: On using the name Kinect, and fetching a binary firmware



On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 17:18:22 +0200
Josselin Mouette <joss@debian.org> wrote:

[...]
> > 2) For the audio to work a binary firmware is needed; it can be taken
> >      from the Micosoft Kinect for Windows SDK[4] but since that is not
> >      re-distributable I decided to use a script[5] which downloads and
> >      extracts the firmware, the script is going to be called at
> >      installation time, is that OK?
> 
> It is OK but on 2 conditions: 
>       * it needs to check the integrity of the firmware using a secure
>         hash or equivalent technology; 
>       * the package will need to go in contrib.
> 

OK thanks, I've made the required changes, me and my sponsor are
almost ready to upload, but we would like to have the last doubt
sorted out, should the script which download the firmware be interactive
and ask the user to explicitly accept the Microsoft Kinect for Windows
SDK license? Even if we are only taking a single binary file out of it?

This is the text of the license:
http://www.kinectforwindows.org/download/EULA.htm

Most of the restrictions are in the "1. INSTALLATION AND USE RIGHTS."
section, but we are not really "installing" the SDK, just "downloading"
and "accessing" it to extract a firmware blob, are we safe because of
that? I am not a native English speaker so I could have taken the legal
text too naively.

Thanks,
   Antonio

-- 
Antonio Ospite
http://ao2.it

PGP public key ID: 0x4553B001

A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
   See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?

Attachment: pgpNvxzHG39ri.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: