Actually, I don't believe I ever requested that Intel change their license.
I merely was suggesting that A) it was in the wrong package, and B) that in order to abide by the license the individual be presented with a popup. Of course, while the new license might be sufficient, it is clearly outlined in http://intellinuxwireless.org/?n=faq&s=license that the older license for which this report pertains, is still in effect for both of the drivers. <QUOTE> A. The important point is to make sure that the end user is notified that the firmware component is governed by an Intel license and provided with a copy of the license terms prior to downloading or using the software. </QUOTE> There is also mention that a header license agreement could cover their distribution. While I have long since moved on from this, I suspect that the statement "All ipw2x00 and iwlwifi firmware files now have appropriate licensing." is actually incorrect as outlined in the link: <QUOTE> Q. The license for the binaries needed with the newer projects (ipw3945 and iwlwifi) seems much cleaner than the license for the ipw2100 and ipw2200. Can you change the terms of the older license? [ ipw2100 and ipw2200 specific ] A. Unfortunately, no. Those binaries contain intellectual property licensed from third parties, and Intel must follow certain contractual obligations in licensing for those components. The ipw3945 and iwlwifi related binaries are all Intel-developed, and we are able to use a simplified license for that product. </QUOTE> -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Mythbuntu Bug Team, which is subscribed to linux-firmware-nonfree in Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/179139 Title: Intel Wireless Restrictions: ipw2100, ipw2200 are not Free Status in “linux” package in Ubuntu: Invalid Status in “linux-firmware” package in Ubuntu: Fix Released Status in “linux-firmware-nonfree” package in Ubuntu: Invalid Status in “linux-ubuntu-modules-2.6.22” package in Ubuntu: Won't Fix Bug description: The Intel series of wireless adapters requires the usage of a binary blob firmware. In particular, consistent across all of the binary blob firmware files is the following clause: "Do not use or load this firmware (the "Software") until you have carefully read the following terms and conditions. By loading or using the Software, you agree to the terms of this Agreement. If you do not wish to so agree, do not install or use the Software." As such, the EULA is not presented to the user. According to the web page, one must accept the EULA before using the binary blob firmware. Should this not be treated as a 'restricted' driver? Nvidia's driver also requires the binary blob approach and is listed as a 'restricted driver' as it too requires an accepting of a EULA. EULA locations for the relevant firmware blobs: EULA for ipw2100: http://ipw2100.sourceforge.net/firmware.php?fid=4 EULA for ipw2200: http://ipw2200.sourceforge.net/firmware.php?fid=7 The 3945 has a binary microcode blob that has a license as well, but doesn't seem as crippling: http://bughost.org/ipw3945/LICENSE To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/179139/+subscriptions _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~mythbuntu-bugs Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~mythbuntu-bugs More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
