Hi Mike, >> Hi, >> >> I am looking for discussion about a possibly controversially licensed >> package >> in development, firmware-ipw2200. >> >> License: Intel license >> >> http://bughost.org/firmware/LICENSE.ipw2200-fw > >Last time I looked at this license, when I was the ipw2200 package maintainer, >it would not allow inclusing in non-free.
Is that still the case in your opinion? Or have the terms changed significantly enough from last time you read the license, and now it is possibly fit for non-free? > >> 3. The package must install the LICENSE file in the same location on the >> system that the firmware files are installed. If it is standard practice in >> your distribution to place all license files in a centralized location (for >> example /usr/share/license), then you are free to place a copy of the >> license >> in that location, in addition to placing it in the directory containing the >> firmware files. > >This is sooooooo stupid. How about the same terms used by another firmware ? >That leads to several packages needing to install the same file, since >the directory containing the firmware files is the same. I agree it is stupid. Is this point really valid though? The file is actually named LICENSE.ipw2200-fw, which is unique enough, and the license does not dictate the name of the installed file, but only its location and content. Thanks, Kel. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
