2010/12/9 Henry Ptasinski <henryp@xxxxxxxxxxxx>: > On Wed, Dec 08, 2010 at 02:23:49PM -0800, Greg KH wrote: >> On Wed, Dec 08, 2010 at 11:07:53PM +0100, RafaÅ MiÅecki wrote: >> > 2010/12/8 Henry Ptasinski <henryp@xxxxxxxxxxxx>: >> > > Second attempt at cleaning up firmware filenames. >> > > >> > > The basename-apiversion-codeversion construction for firmware filenames is not >> > > used by most other firmware files, adds complexity, and is not providing any >> > > value. ÂRenamed the firmware files using just basename-apiversion. ÂAlso, fixed >> > > WHENCE to have correct path to brcmfmac files. >> > > >> > > Signed-off-by: Henry Ptasinski <henryp@xxxxxxxxxxxx> >> > >> > Henry, I believe we got report that Red Hat can not include your >> > firmware anyway because of licensing. Can you change license to some >> > common one which allows providing your firmware with distributions? >> >> That's news to me, what specific licensing issue have you heard about >> here? ÂLast I saw, the issues were resolved and everyone could >> redistribute this firmware. > > On a thread about other firmware, Dan Williams wrote: > >> There's an existing Broadcom license in linux-firmware.git, and it *may* >> be OK, but it's really, really long and given that other major companies >> adopted the "shorter is better" approach, it's hard to believe that all >> the existing Broadcom license text is actually needed. > > I'm not sure that translates to "can not include your firmware". Regardless, I > am trying to get our license simplified. ÂObviously that's taking some time, > and I don't have any resolution yet, but I'll keep working on it. You quoted just a selected part of Dan's message. Earlier he mentioned about Fedora's problems (sorry, I misremembered distro) ---------- WiadomoÅÄ przekazana dalej ---------- Od: Dan Williams <dcbw@xxxxxxxxxx> Data: 21 paÅdziernika 2010 17:21 Temat: Re: Request for free-distributable Broadcom's (G|LP)-PHY firmware Do: RafaÅ MiÅecki <zajec5@xxxxxxxxx> DW: Henry Ptasinski <henryp@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Brett Rudley <brudley@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Nohee Ko <noheek@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxx>, "linux-wireless@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <linux-wireless@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, b43-dev <b43-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> That's not enough to allow Fedora to ship it. ÂWe'd need a clear license from Broadcom (ex the existing Intel or Marvell firmware licenses) before Fedora could feel comfortable about shipping it legally in all jurisdictions. http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/dwmw2/linux-firmware.git;a=blob;f=LICENCE.mwl8k;h=3224e1bbfba8ccd1d980f57eb88378f20bb2d146;hb=HEAD http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/dwmw2/linux-firmware.git;a=blob;f=LICENCE.libertas;h=1fd8766c26a170b50605455ae6f54b607baa12cf;hb=HEAD There's an existing Broadcom license in linux-firmware.git, and it *may* be OK, but it's really, really long and given that other major companies adopted the "shorter is better" approach, it's hard to believe that all the existing Broadcom license text is actually needed. _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
