[meta-freescale] [PATCH] fsl-eula-unpack: deploy Freescale EULA
otavio at ossystems.com.br
Wed Jun 3 07:30:54 PDT 2015
On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 11:13 AM, Lauren Post <Lauren.Post at freescale.com> wrote:
> This patch is going to cause a HUGE problem on all our proprietary packages.
> MX53's bound license is an precursor to current license. With this change MX53 is now broken. The old license did not require an SCR so an SCR is not available for mx53.
> We are going to get many new versions of our EULA as more 3rd parties are added to the appendix. This is going to be a big problem. It means we have to update new versions for packages that might have no changes but EULA change.
> I think the current implementation of keeping the license bound to the recipe is the correct. If this is part of the eula unpack class it will be a big problem to maintain in future. People will see new versions of components that are not changing but only because of a EULA
> If we keep the license checksum in the recipe the problem is solved.
> I am a licensing trusted advisor and I know our licenses well and the new license evolved from the earlier licenses so the older packages are covered under current license but do not need to packaged with each license update.
Where in the EULA file it says it is compatible with the next
versions? I am not a licensing trusted advisor, nor a lawyer, but it
is hard to believe a previous version says it is compatible with
upcoming, non-released, versions.
Is there a document from Freescale Legal authorities stating this? How
a company can have this statement to avoid any possible legal
implications due the license change happened in the package or EULA?
Stefan change makes it easier to spot those changes and demand the
right actions from Freescale to solve them. What you are stating I
couldn't find in the EULA file. Please point me the place where this
Otavio Salvador O.S. Systems
Mobile: +55 (53) 9981-7854 Mobile: +1 (347) 903-9750
More information about the meta-freescale