[meta-freescale] [PATCH] fsl-eula-unpack: deploy Freescale EULA

[Otavio Salvador]

Dear Lauren,

On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 2:27 PM, Lauren Post <Lauren.Post at freescale.com> wrote:
...
> All software is subject to agreement to, and compliance with, Freescale's
> End User License Agreement.   To have the right to use these binaries in
> your images, you must read and accept the following terms.  If there are
> conflicting terms embedded in the software, the terms embedded in the
> Software will control.
...

I completely disagree with the change proposed by your lawyer. The
statement seems completely wrong to me.

When we use the "all" word this states that Freescale EULA overrides
the license terms of:

Linux kernel - GPL-2.0
Qt5 - LGPL-3.0 / commercial
…

and Freescale has no right to do so. The proposed text put Freescale
at risk of license agreement glitch as when it is said "If there are
conflicting terms embedded in the software, the terms embedded in the
Software will control." it opens the door for someone to make a GPL
application and contaminate EULA covered binaries (i.e Vivante's
ones), just by linking at them and stating their license "controls"
the license terms.  It is clear that the lawyer is underestimating the
complexity involved here.

The text in use, nowadays, in the setup-environment:

"Some BSPs depend on libraries and packages which are covered by Freescale's
End User License Agreement (EULA). To have the right to use these binaries in
your images, you need to read and accept the following..."

Makes clear that it is user/customer duty to inspect the EULA and
check if it is possible to agree with it, it makes clear libraries and
packages might be under this license and its his/her duty to verify
those.

Regards,

-- 
Otavio Salvador                             O.S. Systems
http://www.ossystems.com.br        http://code.ossystems.com.br
Mobile: +55 (53) 9981-7854            Mobile: +1 (347) 903-9750