consider a b43-firmware package like this?

[Pix]

My hosting policy is the same since the beginning of livna: i'll host 
everything you want for fedora, until lawyers knocks to my door! :)


Hans de Goede a écrit :
> John W. Linville wrote:
>> Greetings,
>>
>> Probably some of you know my name and my role with Fedora and the
>> Linux kernel.  If not, then suffice it to say that I am very interested
>> in having people get wireless working as easily as possible.
>>
>> One problem that often hinders users in that regard is firmware for
>> their wireless devices.  Fortunately, Fedora has accepted firmware
>> packages in the main repository for some time.  And, we have had
>> good success with getting firmware made available under suitable
>> licenses for Fedora.  Still, one particular vendor has been non-
>> (but not necessarily anti-)cooperative: Broadcom.  This is a problem,
>> as their devices are quite common.
>>
>> The "approved" firmware for use with the b43 and b43legacy drivers
>> comes from the OpenWRT website, where it is provided as part of larger
>> MIPS binaries.  AFAIK Broadcom has never bothered OpenWRT about this,
>> yet neither have they offered an explicitly stated license for this
>> practice.
>>
>> The MIPS binaries from the OpenWRT site in turn come from packages
>> distributed by wireless AP vendors in order to comply with the GPL.
>> The MIPS binaries are pre-compiled in those packages, but they are
>> clearly intended to be linked into Linux kernels to run on those APs.
>> In my mind, this at least implies intent that it is alright to
>> redistribute these binaries.
>>
>> So, I have created packages which use these AP vendor's GPL packages as
>> sources, extract the MIPS binaries, then further extract the wireless
>> firmware using b43-fwcutter.  It is a bit odd in that the src.rpm file
>> (containing the AP vendor code) is huge, while the binary rpm file
>> is tiny.  But, they work just fine. :-)  I have packages for both
>> b43 and b43legacy.  I will include the COPYING file I composed for
>> inclusion in the b43 firmware package below.  I have a similar one for
>> the b43legacy package.
>>
>> Perhaps not surprisingly, the string of arguments above has yet to
>> sway any Fedora authority to bless these packages.  So I wonder,
>> is the case above strong enough to merit including such packages in
>> RPM Fusion?  If that seems likely, then I'll be happy to submit the
>> packages for your review.  Obviously this would seem to belong in the
>> "non free" section...
>>
>
> Sounds reasonable to me, the rules in rpmfusion for legal-ish 
> questions are simple if both Matthias and Pix (the 2 main infra 
> providers) say something is ok it is ok, if either of them thinks its 
> not ok, it isn't (as as infra-providers they bare the greatest legal 
> risk).
>
> So Matthias, Pix, is this ok with you?
>
> I would much prefer to see this in Fedora proper (and on the live-cd) 
> though, maybe we should set up a petition or something like that?
>
> Talking about firmware, do you know what the legal status is / options 
> are for the prism / isl firmwares?
>
> Regards,
>
> Hans