consider a b43-firmware package like this?

[Hans de Goede]

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