Andrew Suffield wrote:
>>>Quoth the page: "Look at the source files yourself to >>>understand any licensing restrictions on their use. >>>Alteon's license may be summarised like this: you may share >>>and develop the firmware, but it is only for use with >>>Alteon NIC products." > > >That summary is obviously bogus because you can't do that in >a license. I looked at the source files, and I did not find >any license at all. Everything says "All rights reserved" on >it. So I think this is just yet another entirely unlicensed >firmware bundle - ironically, it's one which *does* include >source written in C, so there is absolutely no chance anybody >could argue that the hex dump is source. > Why do you say "you can't do that in a license?".
>>> The firmware contained herein as keyspan_*.h is >>> ... >>> Permission is hereby granted for the distribution of >>> this firmware image as part of a Linux or other Open >>> Source operating system kernel in text or binary form >>> as required. >>> ... >>> This firmware may not be modified and may only be >>> used with Keyspan hardware. Distribution and/or >>> Modification of the keyspan.c driver which includes >>> this firmware, in whole or in part, requires the >>> inclusion of this statement." > > >Finally, one with a real license. It's obviously non-free, >but I see no reason why it can't be distributed in non-free, >with the usual provisos about proprietary drivers being >entirely unsupportable.
As I said before, it seems to me that is not distributable /unless/ within a whole copy of the kernel; ie neither in a kernel-modules-nonfree nor in a keyspan-module-nonfree packages.
>A few of these are BSD-licensed binaries; those are indeed >distributable, although of course they're proprietary.
-- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
