Taking off debian-legal, since this is so not legal discussion anymore.
Andres Salomon wrote:
I think they said they'd accept a patch which loaded the firmware but fell
back to firmware built into the kernel if it wasn't present, as a
transitional requirement. Ugh squared. But I can do
On Thu, 2005-06-02 at 10:37 -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Taking off debian-legal, since this is so not legal discussion anymore.
Andres Salomon wrote:
I think they said they'd accept a patch which loaded the firmware but fell
back to firmware built into the kernel if it wasn't present,
Andres Salomon wrote:
Yes, that's what I was thinking. Vendors will be taking care of
firmware file installation; kbuild should be handling it when running
modules_install. Perhaps a firmware_install target that takes care of
the various firmware blobs?
Sounds good.
I can do that, if
On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 11:24:12AM -0400, Andres Salomon wrote:
On Sun, 29 May 2005 05:48:55 -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
[...]
Great! This license is totally distributable. I'm not sure,
unfortunately,
what counts as equivalent to hexadecimal. I think that's the only
problem.
On Tue, 31 May 2005 22:32:30 -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Andres Salomon wrote:
As I remember, upstream (jgarzik/davem) was not overly interested in such
a patch to tg3. Is this still the case, or are they amenable to such
changes?
Upstream was not interested in legal niceties like
On Sun, 29 May 2005 05:48:55 -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
[...]
Great! This license is totally distributable. I'm not sure, unfortunately,
what counts as equivalent to hexadecimal. I think that's the only problem.
If it was just permission to distribute, unmodified, in any form, it
Andres Salomon wrote:
As I remember, upstream (jgarzik/davem) was not overly interested in such
a patch to tg3. Is this still the case, or are they amenable to such
changes?
Upstream was not interested in legal niceties like including copyright
statements, either. I suppose both are still the
Sven Luther wrote:
The text of the new licence proposal is as follows :
+/* xxx.h: Broadcom tg3 network driver.
+ *
+ * Copyright (c) 2004, 2005 Broadcom Corporation
+ *
+ * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
+ * it under the terms of the GNU
Hello all,
It seems our crusade to solve the dubious licencing of firmware inside the
linux kernel source is starting to show is fruits. After the QLogic feedback
Andres Salomon reported in a previous mail, it is now Broadcom which is coming
back to us with a licence proposal.
Keep in mind
Under US law as I understand it (IANAL), the text in my follow-up to
Andres's QLogic thread is cleaner. I would not recommend pretending
that the embedded firmware image is exclusively data; it is a
separately copyrighted work whose bytes are treated as data by the
driver. The driver is part of
On Wed, May 25, 2005 at 12:59:27PM -0700, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
Under US law as I understand it (IANAL), the text in my follow-up to
Andres's QLogic thread is cleaner. I would not recommend pretending
that the embedded firmware image is exclusively data; it is a
separately copyrighted
Hi Sven,
On Wed, May 25, 2005 at 09:28:23PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
It seems our crusade to solve the dubious licencing of firmware inside the
linux kernel source is starting to show is fruits. After the QLogic feedback
Andres Salomon reported in a previous mail, it is now Broadcom which is
On 5/25/05, Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It would then follow that you need to specify an appropriate licence for
distribution of the non-free firmware blob, which was ok i believe in the
original proposal :
Permission is hereby granted for the distribution of this firmware data
13 matches
Mail list logo
