mythbuntu-bugs team mailing list archive

[David Ayers <ayers@xxxxxxxx>]

I just dowloaded linux-firmware from kernel.org.  The license clearly states:
Copyright (c) 2006-2012, Intel Corporation.
All rights reserved.

Redistribution.  Redistribution and use in binary form, without
modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are
met:
...

This firmware really should be moved to linux-firmware-nonfree which is part of multiverse.
If it is significant enough that it should be available in restricted then a linux-firmware-restricted package in restricted should be considered.  But many of us rely on only Free Software/OSI Certified Licensed/DSFG free software in main.

Indeed a bug may have been fixed in the sense that the the obligations
of license are now met.  But this bug is about having this software in
the correct package.

Are there any objections in reopening this issue for both linux-firmware
and linux-firmware-nonfree?

-- 
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Mythbuntu
Bug Team, which is subscribed to linux-firmware-nonfree in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/179139

Title:
  Intel Wireless Restrictions:  ipw2100, ipw2200 are not Free

Status in “linux” package in Ubuntu:
  Invalid
Status in “linux-firmware” package in Ubuntu:
  Fix Released
Status in “linux-firmware-nonfree” package in Ubuntu:
  Invalid
Status in “linux-ubuntu-modules-2.6.22” package in Ubuntu:
  Won't Fix

Bug description:
  The Intel series of wireless adapters requires the usage of a binary
  blob firmware.  In particular, consistent across all of the binary
  blob firmware files is the following clause:

  "Do not use or load this firmware (the "Software") until you have
  carefully read the following terms and conditions. By loading or using
  the Software, you agree to the terms of this Agreement. If you do not
  wish to so agree, do not install or use the Software."

  As such, the EULA is not presented to the user.  According to the web
  page, one must accept the EULA before using the binary blob firmware.

  Should this not be treated as a 'restricted' driver?  Nvidia's driver
  also requires the binary blob approach and is listed as a 'restricted
  driver' as it too requires an accepting of a EULA.

  EULA locations for the relevant firmware blobs:
  EULA for ipw2100:  http://ipw2100.sourceforge.net/firmware.php?fid=4
  EULA for ipw2200:  http://ipw2200.sourceforge.net/firmware.php?fid=7

  The 3945 has a binary microcode blob that has a license as well, but
  doesn't seem as crippling:

  http://bughost.org/ipw3945/LICENSE

To manage notifications about this bug go to:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/179139/+subscriptions