On Wed, May 25, 2005 at 08:53:44PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: > On Wed, 25 May 2005, Sven Luther wrote: > > > + * Permission is hereby granted for the distribution of this firmware > > > data > > > + * in hexadecimal or equivalent format, provided this copyright notice is > > > + * accompanying it. > > Just a minor question here: > > Would we actually be distributing the hexadecimal format, or would we > be distributing the packed binary[1] representation of the hexadecimal > format?
I guess that if there is a 1-1 mapping between the two representations, then it falls under the "equivalent" format thingy. > While it's probably ok the way it is written, if they're going to go > through the trouble of drafting a change, they should make it clear > that it's also ok to distribute the firmware data in the packed binary > form, assuming that's actually what will be distributed. What good is this packed binary for ? Also, the way we are going to distribute it apart from under hexadecimal format, is by distributing the compiled binary driver, which is not clear in the above maybe ? I feel that it could be better, apart from the proposed clarification in the other subthread, to ask them to allow : 1) distribution of the firmware data in hexadecimal or equivalent format, provided the copyright notice accompanies it. 2) distribution as part of a binary module, without necessarily any copyright notice attached, which would be a pain. Since the GPL gives access to the source of the driver when the binary module is available, it also gives access by transition to the copyright notice in question under 1). Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
