2010/12/9 Henry Ptasinski <[email protected]>: > On Wed, Dec 08, 2010 at 02:23:49PM -0800, Greg KH wrote: >> On Wed, Dec 08, 2010 at 11:07:53PM +0100, Rafał Miłecki wrote: >> > 2010/12/8 Henry Ptasinski <[email protected]>: >> > > 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. Renamed the firmware files using just basename-apiversion. >> > > Also, fixed >> > > WHENCE to have correct path to brcmfmac files. >> > > >> > > Signed-off-by: Henry Ptasinski <[email protected]> >> > >> > 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? Last 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. Obviously 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) ---------- Wiadomość przekazana dalej ---------- Od: Dan Williams <[email protected]> Data: 21 października 2010 17:21 Temat: Re: Request for free-distributable Broadcom's (G|LP)-PHY firmware Do: Rafał Miłecki <[email protected]> DW: Henry Ptasinski <[email protected]>, Brett Rudley <[email protected]>, Nohee Ko <[email protected]>, Greg Kroah-Hartman <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, b43-dev <[email protected]> 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. _______________________________________________ devel mailing list [email protected] http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
