mythbuntu-bugs team mailing list archive

[David Ayers <ayers@xxxxxxxx>]

Tim, the fact that the firmware was distributed without the necessary
notices at the time, was a real issue and that has indeed been resolved.
With the new licensing Debian, Ubuntu and others are in compliance with
respect to the obligations to the copyright holders.   The fact that the
firmware was originally distributed without the proper notices should
have probably been tracked in a different report.  Yet that's not the
issue this bug report is about.

Both Debian and Ubuntu provide separate repositories for proprietary
software as a service to their users, some of whom value using free
software systems and others that just enjoy the distribution.  This bug
report is about the service of providing this distinction, not the legal
obligation that has indeed been resolved. That is why a say the original
issue being addressed by this report hasn't been resolved.

Please consider reopening this report so that the firmware will be
placed in the correct package... be it in restricted or multiverse.

-- 
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