No announcement yet.

A "Large Hardware Vendor" Wants A EULA Displayed For Firmware Updates On Linux

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #81
    Originally posted by CommunityMember View Post

    It could be, but, of course, had you carefully looked at the photo (with all the MSI mainboards), and with the LVFS vendor list, you see MSI is already making (at least some) firmware available via LVFS. Which suggests otherwise.
    Hold up... Where's EVGA?


    • #82
      echo yes|program_needs_yes


      • #83
        any bets?

        my assumption ASUS or one of the storage guys WD etc.


        • #84
          It's Realtek, isn't it.


          • #85
            Originally posted by DanL View Post
            They already do that. We're talking about separate firmware blobs for nouveau. But again, they don't offer those for download on their site, so an EULA is probably not the sole/main blocker. I don't think it's Nvidia.
            Plus Nouveau firmware is distributed as part of the linux-firmware project.

            Originally posted by You- View Post
            The hints seem to make them the main candidate consiering the responses to tweets about it being a particular pain point or linux users.
            And HP/Dell/Acer/ASUS aren't? It needs to be seen in the context of LVFS I think.

            Originally posted by You- View Post
            (I just hopetheir attempt to buy ARM fails, as that could become one spectacular disaster)
            Softbank seems really desperate to unload ARM, and there are few companies who would see a business case to fork over that sort of cash. So who else should buy ARM? Microsoft?


            • #86
              Originally posted by CommunityMember View Post

              I think that is the core of the problem. *You* don't download the firmware, fwupd does, and it can't agree to the EULA for you. Apparently the "Large Hardware Vendor" wants the same controls in place as they currently have when you download the firmware updates directly from them (which likely have the usual disclaimers about usage, and no reverse engineering clauses). I would expect nothing less from the usual corporate lawyers (do things again the same as before).

              Perhaps the "Large Hardware Vendor" can be convinced to change their approach, or perhaps firmware from that company will not enter the global LVFS ecosystem, or perhaps enough people will prefer the convenience of letting fwupd do the updates in order to accept an EULA prompt in the case they own any of the "Large Hardware Vendor" equipment and it needs to have the firmware updated.

              An important question would be whether the "Large Hardware Vendor" will be offering the .cab (firmware) files themselves behind their own EULA download, which would at least allow individuals to download them, and place them into the usual places that fwupd can search for, or whether the "Large Hardware Vendor" would expect individuals to continue to use the vendors installation tools.

              Complicated? Maybe.

              Is there an easier way? Perhaps a crowd-sourced idea might come from this forum discussion.

              Annoying for enterprise users when enterprise admins want something automated? Probably.

              Are there alternatives? Yes, tell the large vendor to "pound sand" at the risk of broader acceptance of the fwupd project.

              "You don't want to see anything happen to that nice little software project of yours, do you?"


              • #87
                Originally posted by fkoehler View Post
                If you are Apple and you brick 1billion IPhones with an update, you will have to replace them and get sued by class action suits, no matter if there is a EULA or not.
                It took a friend of mine more than a year to get an iPhone replaced after an update bricked the iPhone. He had to call Apple departments all over Europe before someone at Apple finally took responsibility and just arranged a replacement. His phone bills were probably higher than the replacement, but for him it was a matter of principle.


                • #88
                  Originally posted by hughsie View Post

                  Red Hat won't make me do anything. In fact, my boss doesn't really want to show a EULA either...
                  What about your boss' boss? I'd be fine with EULA-requiring updates, as long as you have to explicitly include them with e.g. an "--include-eulas" switch to fwupdmgr.


                  • #89
                    Originally posted by DanL View Post
                    That's because you're not a lawyer.
                    The lawyer I uesd to know, told me.
                    An EULA is just enforcable, if written in the receivers tongue and if it is presented pre sale.
                    So this has no praxtical uses, since if is presented while upgrading a firmware.
                    For the language just 20% of the people have an appropriate level to understand the english EULA.
                    So even if an EULA would be presented presale, it is deliberately written to not reach every customers, which marks it as no nessitity to use the software.
                    So click it.
                    If one tries to enforce it, tell them to go away and stroll on them if they stay.


                    • #90
                      It's ASUS. I'm 95% sure of it.