On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 09:53:23 -0800, Suresh Govindachar <sgovindac...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > Not so; I have read their licence.txt -- have you? The > licence.txt is in simple English (not leaglease) -- it allows > distribution of the firmware.
I hadn't read one since they started providing an open source driver. This one seems roughly OK. I don't know if there is a sticking point somewhere or if no one has re-evaluated the situation recently. > My original question was why use the indirect approach of > fwcutter rather than the direct approach of using the stuff > provided by Broadcom. The question was _not_ about why > Broadcom's firmware is not distributed in Fedora. I wouldn't consider extracting the firmware from an archive all that direct either. But again, probably the instructions haven't been re-evaluated since Broadcom released the open sourced driver. > I think the reason why Broadcom's firmware is not in Fedora is > because Broadcom does not provide (VHDL, Verilog or whatever) > source code for the firmware, and Fedora.org wants source code > for everything in it distributes. No. Freely redistributable without modification is OK. This is mentioned on the firmware SIG's page (and some other places): http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIGs/FirmWare#Packaging_guidelines They may be a good group to poke about the possibility of changing things. One other thing that might be a sticking point is that this may not be the same firmware expected by the b43 driver. -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
