From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from mms3.broadcom.com ([216.31.210.19]:4235 "EHLO MMS3.broadcom.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754060Ab0LIBaX convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Wed, 8 Dec 2010 20:30:23 -0500 Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2010 17:30:03 -0800 From: "Henry Ptasinski" To: =?utf-8?B?UmFmYcWCIE1pxYJlY2tp?= cc: "Greg KH" , "David Woodhouse" , "devel@linuxdriverproject.org" , "Brett Rudley" , "grundler@google.com" , "linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org" , "Roland Vossen" , "Dowan Kim" , "Arend Van Spriel" , "dcbw@redhat.com" , "Henry Ptasinski" Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] linux-firmware: brcm: Removed codeversion from firmware filenames. Message-ID: <20101209013003.GB2243@broadcom.com> References: <20101020004743.GB31965@kroah.com> <20101020005546.GL10832@broadcom.com> <20101020010320.GA370@kroah.com> <20101021170810.GA15357@broadcom.com> <1288621739.26983.32.camel@macbook.infradead.org> <20101208205000.GA30861@broadcom.com> <20101208222349.GA31641@kroah.com> <20101208233527.GA2148@broadcom.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wed, Dec 08, 2010 at 04:28:31PM -0800, Rafał Miłecki wrote: > 2010/12/9 Henry Ptasinski : > > On Wed, Dec 08, 2010 at 02:23:49PM -0800, Greg KH wrote: > >> On Wed, Dec 08, 2010 at 11:07:53PM +0100, Rafał Miłecki wrote: > >> > 2010/12/8 Henry Ptasinski : > >> > > Second attempt at cleaning up firmware filenames. > >> > > > >> > > The basename-apiversion-codeversion construction for firmware filenames is not > >> > > used by most other firmware files, adds complexity, and is not providing any > >> > > value.  Renamed the firmware files using just basename-apiversion.  Also, fixed > >> > > WHENCE to have correct path to brcmfmac files. > >> > > > >> > > Signed-off-by: Henry Ptasinski > >> > > >> > Henry, I believe we got report that Red Hat can not include your > >> > firmware anyway because of licensing. Can you change license to some > >> > common one which allows providing your firmware with distributions? > >> > >> That's news to me, what specific licensing issue have you heard about > >> here?  Last I saw, the issues were resolved and everyone could > >> redistribute this firmware. > > > > On a thread about other firmware, Dan Williams wrote: > > > >> There's an existing Broadcom license in linux-firmware.git, and it *may* > >> be OK, but it's really, really long and given that other major companies > >> adopted the "shorter is better" approach, it's hard to believe that all > >> the existing Broadcom license text is actually needed. > > > > I'm not sure that translates to "can not include your firmware". Regardless, I > > am trying to get our license simplified.  Obviously that's taking some time, > > and I don't have any resolution yet, but I'll keep working on it. > > You quoted just a selected part of Dan's message. Earlier he mentioned > about Fedora's problems (sorry, I misremembered distro) Yes, I omitted the earlier part since those comments were not directly about the existing Broadcom license. But to be complete: > That's not enough to allow Fedora to ship it. We'd need a clear license from > Broadcom (ex the existing Intel or Marvell firmware licenses) before Fedora > could feel comfortable about shipping it legally in all jurisdictions. > > http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/dwmw2/linux-firmware.git;a=blob;f=LICENCE.mwl8k;h=3224e1bbfba8ccd1d980f57eb88378f20bb2d146;hb=HEAD > http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/dwmw2/linux-firmware.git;a=blob;f=LICENCE.libertas;h=1fd8766c26a170b50605455ae6f54b607baa12cf;hb=HEAD > > There's an existing Broadcom license in linux-firmware.git, and it *may* be > OK, but it's really, really long and given that other major companies adopted > the "shorter is better" approach, it's hard to believe that all the existing > Broadcom license text is actually needed. (via http://marc.info/?l=linux-wireless&m=128767431028798&w=2) - Henry