The bootloader files in http://builds.96boards.org/releases/dragonboard410c/linaro/rescue/latest/dragonboard410c_bootloader_emmc_linux-72.zip are accompanied in by a license which has several requirements which are not very clear:
1.2 Redistribution Restrictions.
Distribution of the Redistributable Binary Code is subject to the following
restrictions: (i) Redistributable Binary Code may only be distributed in binary
format and may not be distributed in source code format: (ii) Redistributable
Binary Code may not be distributed on a stand alone basis but may be
redistributed in conjunction with and as a part of a software application
created by you; (iii) the Redistributable Binary Code may only operate in
conjunction with platforms incorporating Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. chipsets;
(iv) redistribution of the Redistributable Binary Code must include the .txt
file setting forth the terms and condition of this Agreement; (v) you may not
use Qualcomm Technologies’ or its affiliates or subsidiaries name, logo or
trademarks; and (vi) copyright, trademark, patent and any other notices that
appear on the Materials may not be removed or obscured.
Of these, only (i) [distribution in binary form] and (iv) [inclusion of the license.txt] are obvious and straight forward to abide by.
(ii): What constitutes a “software”? The zip file above contains the bootloaders, license file (which are the distributables itself), and a mere 10 line shell script to copy these to the flash. Does this satisfy the “software application” requirement, or was this zip file created under a special grant? If I create a disk image constituting of the bootloaders, linux kernel and userland, does this qualify, although I may have not created anything of the above myself but merely aggregate it? If during the image creation process a deb or rpm package is created which contains nothing but the bootloaders and license, is it legal to grant access to this package?
(iii) How can I satisfy the requirement? As soon as I have passed on the files to someone else, I can no further control their actions.
(v) what accounts for usage of Qualcomms name etc.? For one, I have to refer to Qualcomm to link the license text and the files the license applies to, on the other hand I am not allowed to do this?
(vi) There are no “notices” on the Materials, as these have no physical form. Can I just ignore this requirement?