Re: [ipwave] About OCB patch for ath10k driver on linux

[Paul Wouters <[e-mail]>]

Not it is not the code licence I’m worried about but the IPR claims on OCB.

You might not have a license to use it and only then do we run into limitations of using it in proprietary software as well.

Paul

Sent from my iPhone

> On May 26, 2020, at 10:11, Alexandre Petrescu <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> Le 22/05/2020 à 18:22, Paul Wouters a écrit :
>>> On Fri, 22 May 2020, Alexandre Petrescu wrote:
>>> There is news from Potsdam about an 802.11p (aka OCB mode) patch for an ath10k driver, probably for a Mikrotik R11 kind of card.
>>> 
>>> https://gitlab.com/hpi-potsdam/osm/g5-on-linux/11p-on-linux/-/tree/ath10k
>> Did the license issues regarding the use of OCB outside of TLS RFC's get
>> resolved?
> 
> I suspect TLS implementation is exclusively in the userspace.  That might have a distinct license scheme, that I do not know.
> 
> The OCB patches to ath10k drivers have license schemes that are different.  They would cover generic files deep in the kernel wifi structures, and files more specific to a particular manufacturer, like Compex, or Atheros, Intel, or similar.  They would be a mixed set of licenses both GPL and BSD "no warranty" kinds.
> 
> I think Atheros licenses are easier to use by open source developpers.
> 
> But I do not know what more precisely in TLS userspace licensing might block the use of TLS over 802.11-OCB?
> 
> I do know, however, that there are huge obstacles in making PKI for vehicular networks like we have PKI for the Internet at large.  There's no agreed Certificate Authority for vehicular networks, yet there is agreement that the Internet CAs would not be ok for vehicular networks.  It is hard to obtain certificates for vehicular networks.
> 
> Maybe that difficult situation of CA for vehicular networks relates to a potential licensing problem of TLS?
> 
> Alex