On Wed, Dec 08, 2010 at 04:28:31PM -0800, RafaÅ MiÅecki wrote: > 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) Yes, I omitted the earlier part since those comments were not directly about the existing Broadcom license. But to be complete: > That's not enough to allow Fedora to ship it. We'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. (via http://marc.info/?l=linux-wireless&m=128767431028798&w=2) - Henry _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
