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

Re: Is this license acceptable for non-free?


On Sun, 28 Jul 2013, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> On 13286 March 1977, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> > The new license for AMD microcode updates seems to be quite obnoxious.
> Yes.
> > Is it acceptable for non-free?
> Yes. non-free doesn't need much more than us being able to distribute it.
> Except, ...
> > Without limiting the foregoing, the Software may implement third party
> > technologies for which You must obtain licenses from parties other
> > than AMD. You agree that AMD has not obtained or conveyed to You, and
> > that You shall be responsible for obtaining the rights to use and/or
> > distribute the applicable underlying intellectual property rights
> > related to the third party technologies. These third party
> > technologies are not licensed hereunder.
> , ... you need to make sure that this is fullfilled. IE. do they have
> other stuff with shit licenses included? If so THEN there may be
> trouble, unless that license grants distribute rights.

Given the fact that this is microprocessor microcode we are talking about,
AMD better have conveyed to us EVERY patent license required to use their
processors and update their microcode when we bought them.  I *really*
dislike this.

Note that currently we distribute microcode we obtained through a much less
annoying license. 

> > If You use the Software (in whole or in part), You shall adhere to all
> > applicable U.S., European, and other export laws, including but not
> > limited to the U.S. Export Administration Regulations ("EAR"), (15
> > C.F.R. Sections 730 through 774), and E.U. Council Regulation (EC) No
> > 1334/2000 of 22 June 2000. Further, pursuant to Section 740.6  of the
> > EAR, You hereby certify that, except pursuant to a license granted by
> > the United States Department of Commerce Bureau of Industry and
> > Security or as otherwise permitted pursuant to a License Exception
> > under the U.S. Export Administration Regulations ("EAR"), You will not
> > (1) export, re-export or release to a national of a country in Country
> > Groups D:1, E:1 or E:2 any restricted technology, software, or source
> > code You receive hereunder, or (2) export to Country Groups D:1, E:1
> > or E:2 the direct product of such technology or software, if such
> > foreign produced direct product is subject to national security
> > controls as identified on the Commerce Control List (currently found
> > in Supplement 1 to Part 774 of EAR). For the most current Country
> > Group listings, or for additional information about the EAR or Your
> > obligations under those regulations, please refer to the U.S. Bureau
> > of Industry and Security?s website at ttp://www.bis.doc.gov/.
> That one does not make any fun, but its limited with "If You use the
> software".

Which is just about every Debian system that installs firmware-nonfree, if
"use" can be interpreted as "installing the package".

> I think AMD lost their brain leaving their lawyers free here, but meh.

Meh indeed, this is the only crap in the whole of linux-firmware that has
such obnoxious licensing, not even Intel's braindamage from hell of a
microcode distribution license (which requires creative interpretation to
even make their crap *useable* by a Linux distro) is this annoying.

I don't have a clue why the linux-firmware maintainer accepted something
with such a nasty license in the first place.

Anyway, should I raise a ruckus upstream about this?  I do not feel
confortable being the maintainer of a package with the above EAR crap in its

  "One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring
  them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond
  where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot
  Henrique Holschuh

Reply to: