Tim, the fact that the firmware was distributed without the necessary notices at the time, was a real issue and that has indeed been resolved. With the new licensing Debian, Ubuntu and others are in compliance with respect to the obligations to the copyright holders. The fact that the firmware was originally distributed without the proper notices should have probably been tracked in a different report. Yet that's not the issue this bug report is about.
Both Debian and Ubuntu provide separate repositories for proprietary software as a service to their users, some of whom value using free software systems and others that just enjoy the distribution. This bug report is about the service of providing this distinction, not the legal obligation that has indeed been resolved. That is why a say the original issue being addressed by this report hasn't been resolved. Please consider reopening this report so that the firmware will be placed in the correct package... be it in restricted or multiverse. -- 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
