Marco d'Itri wrote: > On Oct 10, Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Until they do one of these two things, the firmware is not safe to >> distribute. I don't know why upstream is distributing it; I believe they >> are simply being sloppy about licensing. > You know well that upstream is not "being sloppy", but disagrees with > your interpretation of licensing.
On the contrary. The upstream maintainer stated that "nobody" from Broadcom "complained", and apparently felt that that was sufficient, and that it was unimportant to get a valid explicit license. Or indeed to include Broadcom's copyright statement at all, until I complained about its absence. That, to me, seems sloppy. Copyright infrignment is strict liability, IIRC. This is not safe to mess around with. -- This space intentionally left blank.
