On Tue, 2010-09-21 at 15:38 -0700, Larry Finger wrote: > > NACK on the patch that started this thread. Broadcom got caught > violating the GPL and had to provide the binary drivers to compensate > for that. They did not provide anything voluntarily.
Hm, I actually planned to not reply to this thread, but I think I do have to comment on that one. :) I'm not speaking for Broadcom or anybody else. However, I think first of all Broadcom wasn't caught of anything. (I guess you are talking about the WRT issue, right?). It's the _vendors_ who violated the GPL. Second thing is that I do not think it's possible at all to compensate for a GPL violation by providing binary object code. I don't have to explain why this is the case. It's obvious. Back to the original patch. I do think that David is misunderstood here. I also misunderstood him when we talked about that earlier. Here's the original comment again: + Broadcom enabled the development of this driver, by providing all required + hardware information in the form of binary software drivers. Let me rephrase the comment a little bit. I will not change the meaning :) + Certain lawyers are wrong, and this driver proves it. + http://tinyurl.com/ybl83uw That's basically all it says. No more, no less. In the end, I am not interested in these legal fights at all. So I do not have an opinion on whether the patch should be applied or not. I am only interested in technical issues and I'll leave the rest to others who might know better (or not). -- Greetings Michael. _______________________________________________ b43-dev mailing list b43-dev@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/b43-dev
