On 4/30/2017 9:39 PM, Hans de Goede wrote:
Hi,
On 27-04-17 02:36, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 10:53:57AM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
<snip>
Right, sorry. For the pcie device I'm looking at the
name is brcmfmac4356-pcie.txt and I would like to propose
to first check for
"brcmfmac4356-<pci-subsys-vid>-<pci-subsys-pid>.txt"
So who is going to provide these nvram files. We can not
maintain that as there are too many variants and they are under
control
of the OEM/ODM.
Users / people like me who are interested in using certain
devices with Linux. The idea is to at least make it possible to
have these devices just work. E.g. I would like a user to be
able to insert a USB-stick with a live Fedora 27 and then
have everything just work on the GPD win.
To make this happen I will submit the nvram file from the
Windows install on the GPDwin to linux-firmware as
"brcmfmac4356-<pci-subsys-vid>-<pci-subsys-pid>.txt"
and yes I've checked that there are sensible values in
the subsys ids.
I suppose the "nvram file from the Windows install" than has a
redistributable license?
IANAL but I fail to see how the contents of this file is
anything but functional and as such not copyright-able.
We take licensing serious on linux-firmware, a IANAL is no excuse for
being sloppy.
I don't mean to be sloppy. As I already stated I plan to make it
clear in the commit msg that there is no license info for the nvram
file and that in my non expert opinion that is not a problem.
If people disagree then we will likely need to ask an actual lawyer
for advice and see from there,
I think what Luis mean to say here is that you should be sure about this
instead of submitting the patch and see what happens. In that respect I
will inform internally what Broadcom policy is regarding the
distribution requirements/restriction of the nvram files.
Regards,
Arend
