Re: consider a b43-firmware package like this?

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...