Re: consider a b43-firmware package like this?

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